ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—

Volunteering (Young People)

Kerry McCarthy: What steps he is taking to encourage more young people to volunteer.

Kevin Brennan: The Government are investing £117 million in youth volunteering in the next three years through the organisation v. This is the biggest ever investment in youth volunteering and v has so far created 750,000 volunteering opportunities. The Office of the Third Sector also provides funding to YouthNet UK, the National Youth Agency, Youth Action Network and the British Youth Council, which will provide youth volunteering opportunities.

Kerry McCarthy: I thank the Minister for that response. Although progress has been made, it is still very much the case that children from poorer families are less likely to be able to volunteer to do internships or a gap year working in the community before going on to further study. They lack the contacts, the confidence or, in many cases, the finance to do so. Will the Minister tell the House what more is being done to ensure that the opportunity to volunteer is made available to everybody?

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Volunteering is an extremely important part of social mobility and opportunities. Volunteering in our most deprived communities is important to building up our young people's aspirations and the skills that are available to them, which is why we are making the investments that I have mentioned. As she mentioned gap years, she will be interested to know that the Department for International Development is investing £10 million to enable 18 to 25-year-olds to volunteer for 10 weeks overseas. The Platform 2 project, as it is called, is aimed at those who would otherwise not have that opportunity.

Mark Pritchard: As the Minister will know, with a former Defence Minister, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson), on his right, many young volunteers in the community are from the cadet forces. May I encourage the Minister to liaise with Defence Ministers as part of Cadet 150 to ensure that the right funding is found for the Sea Cadet Corps, the Air Training Corps and the Army Cadet Force?

Kevin Brennan: Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Cadet Corps and the great job that they did on Remembrance Sunday and in the recent important commemorations. I can confirm that the Government fully support the Cadet Corps. Indeed, my previous post was in the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and we did a great deal to promote the cadet forces through our schools, and I will certainly be happy to liaise with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence on the issue.

Derek Wyatt: I am a patron of TimeBank, one of the great volunteering organisations in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister confirm that the research so far suggests that those who are out of work but volunteer then get back into work more quickly than any other group of people?

Kevin Brennan: Yes. I recently met representatives of TimeBank, and I commend my hon. Friend for his work. Volunteering is extremely important to getting people back into work, in terms of both aspiration and skills. Volunteering can form an important part of getting people back into work quickly and maintaining momentum in social mobility. I speak from personal experience: when I left university in 1982, at a time of high unemployment, the first thing that I did was volunteer in what would now be called a social enterprise. I can confirm that doing so helped me to get the confidence and skills to get into paid employment quickly.

Susan Kramer: I should like to follow up on that comment. The Minister will know that many young people who will be graduating from school and university will be aware that they are not going to get work in this economic climate. What is he doing with the voluntary sector to step up volunteering opportunities for those young people, so that they are not disillusioned and can at least gain some experience and strengthen their CVs? [Official Report, 19 November 2008, Vol. 483, c. 1MC.]

Kevin Brennan: I would recommend volunteering as an option for people leaving university who are not immediately moving into work. As I have said, the investment that the Government are making in v, which has already been matched with more than £33 million from the private sector, with, I understand, more to come in an announcement in December, will play a big role in getting young people into those volunteering opportunities. As I have said, v has already identified more than 750,000 opportunities for young people.

Adrian Bailey: I recently attended an event in Tipton in my constituency, which was organised by V Flex and designed to promote volunteering in local charities and schools. Will the Minister undertake to assess the progress and outcomes of such events, with a view to rolling out best practice in the rest of the country?

Kevin Brennan: I commend my hon. Friend for attending that event and taking such a close interest. I will certainly be happy to talk with him and hear what his perspective on that event was and to take a look at the success of such events throughout the country.

Nick Hurd: What does the Minister think will be the impact of a deep recession on attitudes to volunteering? What assurance can he give the House about the Government's commitment to coming forward with measures to support charities and voluntary organisations that are suffering liquidity and cash-flow problems as a result of the banking crisis? They could be forced to cut services just when they are most needed.

Kevin Brennan: It is clearly a challenging time for the third sector, and there are complex issues to address. Any Government response should be well considered, planned and executed. The hon. Gentleman will know, because the Prime Minister, in last week's Question Time, answered his question by saying that the Government were considering a number of measures in response to the third sector, given the economic circumstances. I can confirm that the Office of the Third Sector within the Cabinet Office is working closely with Treasury officials to develop a package of support measures for charities that will be outlined later this month after the pre-Budget report. I can also confirm that I will be co-chairing a sector-wide summit with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations on 24 November.

Voluntary Organisations (Disabled People)

Julie Morgan: What recent discussions he has had with voluntary organisations on working with severely disabled people.

Kevin Brennan: I meet with representatives of a wide range of voluntary organisations in my capacity as Minister for the Third Sector, including those from many excellent organisations who work with and on behalf of disabled people with a range of impairments. For example, just last week I met John Knight of Leonard Cheshire Disability to discuss issues related to disabled people.

Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the pioneering work of the Touch Trust, of which I am a patron, which was started by my constituent, Dilys Price? The trust works with people with profound disabilities—many of them cannot walk or speak, and also have profoundly challenging behaviour. Does he agree that voluntary bodies are often the best at starting off charities, as my constituent did, and that Government agencies should give them as much support as possible?

Kevin Brennan: I commend my hon. Friend for her patronage of that charity and, in fairness, all hon. Members who support charities in their local areas. I know of the work of the Touch Trust, not least because my hon. Friend is also my constituency neighbour in Cardiff. I am familiar with both the work of the trust and the work that she does with it. Such organisations often bring a special, personal and local perspective to issues such as working with disabled people.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister will be aware of the valuable work done by Voluntary Service Overseas with able-bodied and disabled people, but what steps can his Department take to stop what is in effect a fraud? Private companies attract money from individuals to send them on trips abroad. Those individuals think that they will be doing valuable work, but it turns out that they are on some sort of glorified holiday. It is not the intention of those people to go on glorified holidays; they want to do valuable work. In effect, they are defrauded of their money. Meanwhile, disabled people who could be getting help are not getting it.

Kevin Brennan: I would not wish to belittle voluntary work overseas, and I assume that the hon. Gentleman is not referring to taking the shadow Front-Bench team to Rwanda, which I understand is part of its plans. Many people want to make a positive contribution, and we should welcome that. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular evidence of the fraud and mis-selling that he described, I would be grateful to see it and take the matter up with my colleagues.

Betty Williams: As my hon. Friend represents a Welsh constituency, I am sure he will be aware of the excellent work done by Mencap Wales. Does he agree that there is still a lack of understanding among some Government agencies of what learning disability means? There is a long way to go before those agencies and the public at large understand about the type of work that Mencap Wales carries out, and about learning disabilities.

Kevin Brennan: I commend my hon. Friend for the work that she does with Mencap Wales, and I commend Mencap's work more broadly across the UK. As part of our public service agreement with the social exclusion taskforce, we have been trying to help socially excluded adults. We have ensured that people with learning difficulties are one of our target groups, for the very reasons that my hon. Friend gave. I hope that, in driving that message across government, we will overcome some of the problems of the past that she outlined.

Alistair Burt: One of the observations made in last year's report by the Commission on the Future of Volunteering was that volunteers—for example, people who deal with the disabled—often found that those in statutory agencies had poor training in how to work with them. That was a source of great concern and annoyance to them. Have the Government made any progress on dealing with that problem, and on creating greater training opportunities for those in statutory agencies to work more effectively with volunteers?

Kevin Brennan: Yes, and we are investing in training not just for the volunteers themselves, but, exactly as the hon. Gentleman suggests, for those who train the volunteers. I would be happy to have further conversations with him about the details, but, following the commission that he mentioned, this is certainly a priority matter for us.

Security Breaches (Data Loss)

David Heathcoat-Amory: How many electronic breaches of security relating to information held by his Department there were in the last 12 months.

Tom Watson: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, as a long-serving Member of this House, will appreciate that our disclosure policy is underpinned by advice from security experts. In this area, we are advised that it is not in our security interests to confirm information regarding electronic attacks against Government IT systems.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Perhaps I could inform the House, if the Minister will not, that over the past 12 months the Information Commissioner has reported 176 admitted breaches of data security by the public sector. That is a shameful record, for which the Government are responsible. Will they now abandon plans for further centralisation of personal data—either for identity cards or intercepts of e-mails and telephone calls—because the Government are plainly incapable of obeying their own laws on personal data security?

Tom Watson: We are determined to keep the country safe and we will put in place the tools that are required to do the job. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is that he knows that those data losses have taken place because we put forward a disclosure policy, which we believe is the only way to get the necessary culture change in government and in the public sector—although the problem applies to the private as well as the public sector—whereby people's personal data are treated in the same way as people's own money.

Andrew Miller: What has happened in respect of the training of public servants since the important reports by Sir Edmund Burton and the Cabinet Secretary? What other steps is the Minister taking to improve public confidence in the Government's handling of private data? Will he ensure that a transparent policy is adopted?

Tom Watson: My hon. Friend is right: training is at the heart of the matter. I am informed that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has trained more than 90,000 of its staff in data handling. In my view, that compares very favourably to the private sector, where a recent survey showed that a third of companies do not even know when they have data losses, whereas the transparency policy that we introduced will lead to a culture change across the whole of the public sector.

Paul Rowen: In the light of the number of data losses from public bodies, will the Minister consider increasing the penalties for those who mishandle our data, so that they begin to appreciate just how important it is that private and personal data should be treated as such—and not in the offhand way of many public bodies in the past?

Tom Watson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The Walport review has looked into the matter and will be reporting back to the House in the months to come.

Francis Maude: The Cabinet Secretary's report on data handling and security, which was published back in June, admitted that urgent action was needed to improve data security across the Government. Three years earlier, back in 2005, the Walport report, which came from the Government's own Council for Science and Technology, had already recommended a series of changes to Whitehall practice in order to protect people's personal data. Why did the Government not even bother to respond to the report, let alone introduce any of its recommendations for action, which were proposed three years ago?

Tom Watson: The right hon. Gentleman and I have rehearsed this argument over a number of months. The Government have put in place a series of strong measures to tighten down on data loss, which I think compares favourably to measures in the private sector. We do penetration testing from user-friendly hackers; we restrict access to removable electronic devices; and encryption is now the norm. I say again that, compared to the private sector, where a third of companies do not even know when data loss has happened and 60 per cent. refuse to tell their customers when there has been one, we are leading the way in the public sector. I know that one of the right hon. Gentleman's second jobs is as a banker—banks are notorious for not revealing data losses—so I hope that he is not trying to set one rule for the public sector in his day job and another rule for the private sector in his secondary-income job.

Francis Maude: I remind the Minister that his responsibility is for data security across government. He will know that one of the recommendations—or, rather, requirements—of Sir Gus O'Donnell's report was for all Departments to introduce privacy impact assessments so that threats to data security could be considered properly. Why, then, has the Home Office refused to provide such an impact assessment for the identity cards project, why has the Department of Health refused to draft one for the NHS Spine project, and why has the Department for Children, Schools and Families refused to provide one for the ContactPoint children's database? How can we trust the Government to protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens when they systematically ignore their own requirements?

Tom Watson: We have achieved a staggering amount of progress in making data safe in government. We are changing day by day, and thousands of people have been involved in the training project. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take advice from his hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), who has a secondary job as a consultant for a corporate social responsibility firm that trades under the maxim "Public reporting has become fundamental to a company's trustworthiness"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not responsible for these matters.

Power of Information Taskforce

Jim Cunningham: What recent progress the Power of Information Taskforce has made; and if he will make a statement.

Tom Watson: The Power of Information Taskforce was set up in April to embrace Web 2.0 technologies. In particular, we look into how we can encourage people to innovate with non-personal information, and how government can take part in online conversations in the public services.

Jim Cunningham: Given that the west midlands leads the way in digital technology, what is the taskforce doing to develop that technology, particularly to assist public services?

Tom Watson: My hon. Friend is right. A number of agencies in the west midlands pioneer digital technologies. I commend to him the taskforce's Show Us a Better Way competition; he can type "Power of Information Taskforce" into any search engine to find the details.
	We believe that citizens can help the Government to design public services in a better way, and that co-production is the way forward. So far, 450 people have entered the competition, and I am pleased to say that it has been a tremendous success. People as far away as the United States of America, India and Australia have followed our example.

Mark Todd: Reports have repeatedly shown that Government data provide a valuable base for added-value product development in the private sector, and that regulating private sector providers appropriately, educating them better on the assets that they hold and a more liberal approach will build new business. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Tom Watson: I entirely agree. There is no doubt that our advance towards freeing up data and making existing public sector information more accessible to our digital entrepreneurs enables them to add value to the United Kingdom economy, and I hope very much that Government policy will take us in that direction.

James Gray: I am glad that the Government have a Power of Information Taskforce, but does the Minister agree that, in addition to power, great risks are involved in the holding of too much information electronically?
	In his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), the Minister said that he could not possibly announce the number of electronic security breaches, but then went on to say how proud he was of having been so open and transparent about the issue. Will he now undertake to inform the House every time that there is a such a breach?

Tom Watson: I do not think it would be helpful to reveal to the hon. Gentleman the nature of the attacks that are made on Government IT systems, although I can assure him that they are investigated thoroughly. When it comes to changing the culture, it is important for us to reveal incidences of data loss so that the public and private sectors can learn from the mistakes that have been made. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Power of Information Taskforce deals only with non-personal data.

People Trafficking

Anthony Steen: What discussions he has had with the Home Office on support for third sector organisations in dealing with the social exclusion of trafficked persons.

Kevin Brennan: The Office for Criminal Justice Reform in the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are currently in the process of tendering for an experienced third sector partner to deliver supported accommodation and advocacy to adult victims who have been trafficked for sexual exploitation and/or domestic servitude.

Anthony Steen: As the Home Office is closing down the country's largest dedicated police unit dealing with human trafficking, there is a real fear that the Government will ratify the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings to the minimum standards. Will the Minister therefore involve the third sector, which has experience of the subject and gives extremely good value for money—I am thinking of organisations such as ECPAT, the Helen Bamber Foundation, Anti-Slavery and the POPPY project—to ensure that victims, and victims alone, are at the centre of the process of implementing the convention?

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that any such project is being closed down. He might be referring to the Metropolitan police trafficking team, to which pump-priming was provided, including £700,000 in the current financial year out of a total grant of £1.678 million. That is pump-priming money, and the Met have not yet made a final decision on it. I can confirm that the Home Secretary indicated in January that we will ratify the Council of Europe convention by the end of the year, and I make it clear that we are on track to do so.

Keith Vaz: Of course we will welcome ratification when it comes. As the Minister may know, the Select Committee on Home Affairs is inquiring into human trafficking. One of our concerns is the lack of co-ordination on a policy basis between voluntary projects in this country and in other countries, such as the origin, transition and destination countries. Will he ensure better co-ordination between the third sector organisations in countries affected by human trafficking?

Kevin Brennan: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Obviously, what third sector organisations can do in this country about trafficking is important, but it is also important to be able to deal with the problem at source. I look forward to seeing the outcome of his Committee's report.

Peter Bone: Would the Minister like to think again about the answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), because the Metropolitan police are closing that human trafficking unit? Will the Minister get in touch with his colleagues and get up to speed?

Kevin Brennan: My understanding is that the Met are reviewing the most efficient and effective way of using their resources to ensure that their future operational response has the right resources in the right place to investigate criminals at all levels of operation and to bring them to justice. As I say, it is not a case of cutting anything; the funding that has gone into that particular unit has always been pump-priming.

Chris McCafferty: Many trafficked young women become pregnant as a direct result of enforced prostitution. Does my hon. Friend agree that compulsory and comprehensive sexual health education is vital to help all young women to protect themselves, especially those who are most vulnerable?

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why I welcome the recent announcement made by the Department for Children, Schools and Families. Teenage pregnancy and social exclusion are big problems for young women in particular communities, and the key to tackling them is to build aspiration and have early interventions, such as the family nurse partnerships and family intervention projects, which have been pioneered in the Cabinet Office.

Public Relations

Andrew Robathan: How much was spent by the Government on public relations, advertising and marketing in (a) 1997 and (b) 2007 according to figures held by the Central Office of Information.

Liam Byrne: The relevant figure for 1997 was £81 million and the relevant figure for 2007-08 was £265 million.

Andrew Robathan: By a quick bit of maths, I make that a threefold increase over the past 10 years. A great deal of that money has been completely wasted on spin and Government propaganda. Every household in this country is having to cut back on its spending, so will the Government pledge to cut back on this wasted spending on Government propaganda?

Liam Byrne: This Government are proud of the extra help that they have put in place for families and businesses in this country. In tough times, that real help will make the world of difference, and now is not the time to keep it secret—it is the time to tell people about it. The Conservative party must come a bit cleaner than it has so far. It must tell us which of the recruitment campaigns for the armed forces and for teaching staff it will shut down, and which public health campaigns and road safety campaigns it will shut down. Those campaigns make a real difference, and the Conservatives, in their desperate search for money for tax cuts, could do a lot of damage to this country.

Skills Shortages

Mary Creagh: What steps he is taking to address skills shortages in the third sector; and if he will make a statement.

Kevin Brennan: Recently, I was pleased to announce, jointly with the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, a new third sector skills body to ensure that the skills system meets the needs of the third sector that will receive £2.5million in funding to March 2011.

Mary Creagh: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The key to the success of any organisation is the quality of its management and accounting staff. What can my hon. Friend do to ensure that those in a management or accounting capacity in the voluntary sector are given access to high-quality, low-cost training in that regard?

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that one key area where there is a shortage of skills in the third sector is in management capacity. That is why the Office of the Third Sector is investing in such training and why we set up the new training body, which has been broadly welcomed across the sector. I look forward to the work that it will undertake to try to improve the sort of management skills that my hon. Friend has rightly outlined as a key need in the third sector.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Richard Ottaway: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 November.

Gordon Brown: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Richard Ottaway: The Prime Minister will be painfully aware that since the 1930s, no Labour Government have left office with unemployment lower than when they entered office, and usually after a recession. Will his Labour Government be any different?

Gordon Brown: We have created 3 million jobs in the last 10 years, and even with the rise in unemployment, it is lower than having 3 million unemployed under the Conservatives. We never said that unemployment was a price worth paying; it was the Conservatives.

Phil Wilson: Paul Krugman, who has recently won the Nobel prize for economics, has said that people
	"ask what I think should be done about the financial crisis."
	He said:
	"The answer is, what Gordon Brown is doing in Britain".
	If the rest of the world is following Britain, will my right hon. Friend tell the House where that will leave those at home who oppose the action that we are taking to give the economy the boost it needs?

Gordon Brown: Let me congratulate Mr. Krugman on his Nobel prize. I think that people are beginning to understand around the world that we are dealing with a new situation of lower inflation next year, a downturn and a credit crunch. That requires very special measures to deal with unprecedented circumstances. I believe that around the world there is now increasing support for the policy that we have put forward, in addition to the recapitalisation of the banks, and that is a fiscal stimulus to back up interest rate cuts. While the Conservatives say that that is unacceptable to them, it is now happening in Germany, France, Spain, Australia, China and America. It is about time the Conservatives entered the real world.

David Cameron: Only this Prime Minister could be quite so smug on the day that 140,000 people have lost their jobs. Before turning to the economy, however, I want to ask the Prime Minister about the tragic death of Baby P. That happened in the same children's services department that was responsible for Victoria Climbié. Yet again, nobody is taking responsibility and nobody has resigned. Does the Prime Minister agree that the Haringey inquiry is completely unacceptable? It is being led by Mrs. Shoesmith, who is the council's own director of children's services. Does the Prime Minister agree that she cannot possibly investigate the failure of her own department?

Gordon Brown: Let me say first—I believe that I speak for the whole country—that people are not only shocked and saddened but horrified and angered by what they have seen reported about what happened to an innocent 17-month-old boy. Every child is precious and every child is unique. Every child should have the benefit of support and protection both from their parents and from the authorities.
	The tragedy that has arisen from the violence and torture of a young child, where three have already been found guilty, raises serious questions that we have to address. The first set of questions is being addressed by Lord Laming, who is now looking at social service protection for children in every part of the country. He carried out the Victoria Climbié inquiry, and I believe that his recommendations were accepted by all parties in this House as being necessary. He will now look at what at what needs to be done.
	The second issue is in Haringey itself. There has been a serious case review, and the executive report already says that there have been failings and weaknesses in the system. The full report has now arrived with the Children's Secretary this morning. It is now for the Government to take action, and we will make a decision about what procedures and processes we will adopt in relation to Haringey. I believe that that is the right thing to do—both a national review, and local action.

David Cameron: Let me ask the Prime Minister again about the local review. Sharon Shoesmith, who is carrying it out, said— [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members should worry about this matter, as this is a local authority that has completely failed. She said that her service had "worked effectively". Now, the Prime Minister's own Children's Minister said very recently:
	"Many areas set up their safeguarding board with the local director of children's services as chair. That's something that frankly does concern me."
	So let me ask again: is it not unacceptable that the person who runs the children's services department is responsible for looking into what her own department did?

Gordon Brown: The procedure that was created after the inquiry by Laming said that local authority directors of children's services and local members had to accept their responsibility. We created local safeguarding children's boards— [ Interruption. ] I am answering the questions. We did so to safeguard children in the area. When an incident like this happens, which is so tragic, a special report has to be done, which is then submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. The report arrived on his desk this morning. We already have the executive summary that was published yesterday and which identified weaknesses in the system. A decision will be made about what to do in relation to Haringey and what procedures need to be followed. I believe that there was all-party support for the Laming report when it was done, and that this is the right way forward.

David Cameron: I asked a straightforward question and have got absolutely no answer. Just on the most basic— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please allow the right hon. Gentleman to be heard. It will not do for us to shout across the Chamber after this terrible news has come to us. It is best to let the right hon. Gentleman speak— [ Interruption. ] Order. I have made a decision and no one will defy the Chair.

David Cameron: I tell you what is shameful, and that is trying to shout down someone who is asking reasonable questions about something that has gone wrong. Let us be honest: this is a story about a 17-year-old girl who had no idea how to bring up a child. It is about a boyfriend who could not read but who could beat a child, and it is about a social services department that gets £100 million a year and cannot look after children. That is what this is about.
	In the case of failing schools, we take them over. In this department in Haringey, one in four positions for social workers is completely vacant. It does nothing to help struggling local schools that are failing, and another child has been beaten to death. I do not expect an answer now, because we never get one, but will the Prime Minister at least consider whether the time has come to take over this failing department and put someone in charge who can run it properly for our children?

Gordon Brown: I think that we are both agreed that this is a tragic and serious loss of life that has got to be investigated properly so that all the lessons can be learned. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that appointing Lord Laming to go around the country and look at what is happening in each area so that we are assured about what is happening is the right thing to do. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has to accept that the executive summary, which has already been published, from the inquiry done in Haringey shows that weaknesses exist. There is an admission of weaknesses that have to be addressed. We have received the full report this morning, and we will act on it quickly. We will do it in the right way so that we come to the judgments that are necessary to protect children in the future. I regret making a party political issue of this matter— [ Interruption. ] I do regret that, because I think— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is in order.

Gordon Brown: I think that the whole country shares the outrage, wants to see action and will support the action that is taken both nationally and in relation to Haringey.

David Cameron: I think that what the Prime Minister said just now was, frankly, cheap. I am not making— [Interruption.] I asked some perfectly reasonable questions about a process that is wrong, and I would ask the Prime Minister to withdraw the attack that that was about party politics.

Gordon Brown: I am absolutely clear about this. There is common ground on both sides of the House, and we should maximise our agreement on these issues about this very sad and tragic case. We have immediately taken action to set up an independent inquiry under Lord Laming, who has a great deal of expertise in this issue, and I believe all people will support it. Action will be taken in relation to Haringey, because we have just received the full report and the executive summary has already identified the weaknesses. We have acted immediately after the end of the court case, and we will continue to take action, because what really matters is the protection of young children in every part of the country.

David Cameron: You accused me of party politics about this— [Interruption.] My apologies, Mr. Speaker; he accused me of— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House again: it is not good, at a time when we have heard this news about a little child who has gone before us, that we should be shouting across the Chamber. Let the Leader of the Opposition speak, and also— [Interruption.] Well, if the Leader of the House lets me do my job, she can do her job. Let the Leader of the Opposition, and also the Prime Minister, speak.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister accused me of playing party politics. I did not mention who runs this council—I did not mention who ran it when Victoria Climbié was tragically killed—and all I am asking is that the Prime Minister withdraws his accusation that I was in any way playing party politics, and not asking a perfectly reasonable question about a tragic case. I was putting to him a point made by his own Children's Secretary, so I ask the Prime Minister one more time: please just withdraw the accusation that I was playing party politics, because he knows I was not.

Gordon Brown: I think the whole House will now want to find unity around these three things: first, this tragic incident must be investigated in every possible way; secondly, the Lord Laming review is the right inquiry to have; and thirdly, now that the full case review has arrived with the Children's Secretary, he will take the necessary action. I hope the whole House can agree that these are the right things to do, and we are doing the right things to get the right answer.

David Cameron: Obviously the Prime Minister does not feel able to withdraw what he said. Let me ask him one more time about the central point, which does not apply only in Haringey, but may well be a problem elsewhere, as his own Children's Minister has said. We have a system that allows directors of children's services to examine the conduct of their own department. That is wrong in every other walk of life. It must be wrong in social services, where we are dealing with the most difficult and sensitive decisions. Will he at least take away what his children's spokesman has said, and say, "You should not investigate your own conduct"? It is simple: give a pledge.

Gordon Brown: The report that will be done will be independent. The local safeguarding children's board has a responsibility to co-ordinate safeguarding action for children. The Lord Laming report will be independent. It will be conducted in such a way that it reviews the findings since the Victoria Climbié case. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not recognise that we have taken action immediately after the court case. We have set up an independent inquiry under Lord Laming. The report on the case review itself has arrived just this morning. That report will be acted on immediately. Surely it is in the interests of all of us to think of a young child and what we can do to make sure that this never happens again.

Lynne Jones: Consumer Focus has criticised the strategy of the Department for Work and Pensions on the replacement of the Post Office card account as being too narrowly focused on delivering an almost identical product at lower cost, rather than on the needs of Post Office card account users and the innovations that can meet those needs. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that priority is given to the needs of Post Office card account users, and that the opportunity of replacing the account is taken to improve on social inclusion, rather than the reverse?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. I know that concern has been expressed by the whole House about the future of the Post Office card account. We are looking at these matters very carefully indeed. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will make a statement in due course.

Nicholas Clegg: Week after week, I have called on the Prime Minister to cut taxes to give help to people on low and middle incomes, and he is now raising expectations that he will do just that, but why should anyone believe him? This is the Prime Minister who will not take responsibility for people losing their jobs, but did take credit for a bank rescue plan that he copied. This is the man who doubled the tax rate for 5 million of the poorest people in the country, and called it a tax cut. When it comes to taxes, he may pretend that he is Robin Hood, but he is no more than a petty pickpocket. People do not need more cynical tinkering. What people need are tax cuts that are big, permanent and fair.

Gordon Brown: If we had listened to the Liberal party's advice, we would be cutting public expenditure by £20 billion this year. That is not the policy that I believe it is right to follow. I hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will support not only the recapitalisation of the banks, but the fiscal and monetary stimulus that ought to be co-ordinated worldwide, and ought not to be happening just in one single country. It is the ability of countries to work together and to co-ordinate that work worldwide that I think will be important to recovery in every country.

Nicholas Clegg: The Prime Minister can misrepresent me all he likes, but he needs to get on and represent the millions of British families who are suffering under his unfair tax system. Right now, millionaires pay less than half the tax that they should on their capital gains. Top earners get an £8 billion tax bonus on their pensions. Up to £40 billion is lost in tax avoidance every year. When will he put an end to these tax breaks, and give ordinary people big tax cuts that are simple, immediate, permanent and fair?

Gordon Brown: First, we have raised capital gains tax from 10 to 18 per cent. Secondly, we have closed tax loopholes and continue to do so in every Budget. Where they are found, we take action when it is necessary. Thirdly, I come back to the point: what sort of stimulus to the economy would it be to cut £20 billion of public spending at the moment?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: A few weeks ago in this House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Government's major contractors would be paid within 10 days. Unfortunately, that fantastic undertaking has not been passed on to the smaller contractors who work for the larger suppliers. That has meant that my constituents have gone belly-up, even though they have done work for the Government. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor invited me to go to Lord Mandelson and ask him for an appointment to discuss the issue. That offer has now been withdrawn by Lord Mandelson, but my constituents still wish to meet him to discuss this important matter. Will the Prime Minister do all that he can to make Lord Mandelson change his mind?

Gordon Brown: I know that the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issues.

Bob Russell: For almost 200 years, the Gurkhas have served in the British Army with loyalty and distinction. Last Tuesday, a Gurkha was killed in Afghanistan. Also last Tuesday, the Home Affairs Committee resolved unanimously to call on the Government to allow those Gurkhas who retired before 1997 the right to live in this country, just as those who have left the Army since 1997 can. Will the Prime Minister take the necessary action, particularly in light of a High Court judgment on this matter in September, to allow Gurkhas who retired pre-1997 to live in the UK?

Gordon Brown: The High Court judgment is being examined by the Home Secretary. There are a number of cases in which people have applied to come into the United Kingdom. Those issues are being reviewed by the Home Secretary now. We have always been clear that where there is a compelling case, soldiers and their families should be considered for settlement. However, in the light of the Court's ruling, we are now going to revise and publish new guidance in the near future. We pay tribute to the Gurkhas, who have fought for the United Kingdom for two centuries. They have served in conflicts throughout the world. They are operating in Iraq and continue to serve with great distinction in Afghanistan. Gurkhas who have served after 1997 have the ability to come into this country, and we are now reviewing the situation that has arisen because of the judgment.

Helen Southworth: Friday is world diabetes day, and next week schoolchildren with diabetes will come to Parliament to seek our support. Will the Prime Minister ensure that they get every bit of help that they need at school to manage their diabetes effectively so that they can take up every opportunity that education offers?

Gordon Brown: The Government are committed to improving the quality of diabetes care, and as my hon. Friend said, world diabetes day is on Friday 14 November. We understand particularly that some children have difficulty getting access to the diabetes care and support that they need at school, and a working group has been set up to look at the issue. The group includes parents of children with diabetes, and various organisations, including Diabetes UK and the Royal College of Surgeons. The Department for Children, Schools and Families is in close liaison with the Department of Health and has given guidance on managing medicine in schools and early years learning, and that is what we will continue to do to help diabetes sufferers.

Angus Robertson: President-elect Obama showed excellent political judgment by opposing the Iraq war, in contrast with the Prime Minister, who supported and funded it. Notwithstanding the excellent work of the troops on the ground in Iraq today, I ask: when will they come home and when will we have the inquiry into the war?

Gordon Brown: Iraq is now a democracy where it was not a democracy under Saddam Hussein. Children are now going to school, health services are being provided and economic development is moving forward in the Basra area, where our troops are best represented. We are now training thousands of Iraqi soldiers so that they can take on the task of defending Iraq itself, and we are also training thousands of policemen and women for the area. When the tasks of training are completed, we will have a fundamental change of mission, which will be similar to the relationship that we have with other countries, and I believe that we are making great progress in doing so.

Andrew Dismore: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of today's lobby by firefighters about the alarming number of deaths on duty. In the past five years, 22 firefighters have died, including 13 who were killed at fires. Does my right hon. Friend agree that lessons must be learned nationally to improve safety, training and emergency planning, so that firefighters, like everyone else, can expect to return home safe and sound at the end of their shift? Will he meet firefighters and bereaved families to discuss those concerns in more detail?

Gordon Brown: I am sure that the whole House will want to pay tribute to the work and the dedication of the fire services and the rescue services in our country, and to acknowledge our debt of gratitude both to those who risk their lives and to the many who have lost their lives in service. These people play a vital role in protecting our communities, and I am sure that our ministerial colleagues will be happy to meet the delegation.

Charles Hendry: The Prime Minister will be aware that people applying for a Warm Front grant to replace a central heating boiler that is broken are now being told that they will have to wait until March next year to have a new one installed, because of Government spending cuts. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is completely unacceptable, bordering on the inhumane, that some of the most vulnerable people in our society should have to exist without heating this winter because they cannot get help from a Government scheme that is intended to help them?

Gordon Brown: I think that we have just increased the amount of help that is available for the programme that the hon. Gentleman talks about. It is called Warm Front, and we are doing what we can to help. We have the biggest insulation and draft-proofing programme that the country has seen, and it has been funded by a levy of £900 million, which the utility companies have paid for. I hope that he agrees that we are doing more than ever to help people in conditions where they want either draft-proofing or insulation, and I shall look at what he says about the Warm Front operation in his area.

Liz Blackman: In this economic downturn, is it not a good thing that Members from all parts of the House are urging small firms to take advantage of the small business rate relief, especially given that the Leader of the Opposition voted against the measure in the first place? Is that not another example of the Tories following the Government's lead?

Gordon Brown: Helping small businesses through this difficulty is one of the prime concerns that have led us to recapitalise the banks and to insist that lending be resumed to small businesses in our country. That is the central problem that we are addressing at the moment. There is a promise from the banks that have received money from us that they will maintain the advertising and availability of lending at the 2007 level. We met small businesses with the banks yesterday, and more work will be done on the matter. It is the essential element in making it possible for small businesses to have the cash flow that they need.

Greg Mulholland: On 26 November, Terry Pratchett, who has Alzheimer's disease, and representatives from the Alzheimer's Research Trust will present a petition to No. 10 Downing street describing the Government's funding of dementia research as "appalling"—it is just 3 per cent. of the medical research budget—and asking for an increase. Will the Prime Minister meet me, Terry Pratchett and experts from the Alzheimer's Research Trust to discuss the issue?

Gordon Brown: Of course I will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, but I have to say that we have set aside £15 billion over the next 10 years for the priorities of medical research, which include cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. I believe that the extra, additional money that we will spend on research in the next few years will help the sufferers of that terrible disease.

John Battle: At times of financial pressure, it is the poor who pay the highest price. Will my right hon. Friend get the Government to get the regulators of the financial industries seriously to consider capping at 30 per cent. the interest rates of doorstep lenders and others who charge the poorest most? At the same time, that would give a real boost to credit unions, which give a practical, local alternative.

Gordon Brown: I agree with what my right hon. Friend says about credit unions. As we announced yesterday, the Government will work with the credit card industry to establish clearer rules and principles and bring forward a statement of best practice about how it will apply fair principles to existing debt. The Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and his Department are in discussion with the industry about how we can help people who are facing difficulties with credit cards.

James Arbuthnot: The Prime Minister has just said that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will make a statement in due course about the Post Office card account. Does the Prime Minister recognise that to local communities, local post offices are vital? These are small businesses that, particularly now, need exactly the sort of help that people have been talking about. Does the Prime Minister agree that the best way of helping these small businesses would be to award the Post Office card account contract to Post Office Ltd—not in due course, but today?

Gordon Brown: I know about the interests that people have in the future of the Post Office credit account, but the right hon. Gentleman must also remember that we are putting £2 billion into the post office network over the next three years. I thought that he would be appreciative of the fact that, given that we have given £2 billion in support in previous years, and are giving an extra £2 billion in the next three years, we are doing everything that we can to support the post office network.

Andrew Slaughter: Yesterday's debate showed opposition to Heathrow expansion from both sides of the House. My constituents in west London face the prospect of intolerable damage to their quality of life as a result of an aviation strategy that is many years out of date. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the latest environmental and economic circumstances are considered before any decision is made on the third runway and mixed mode?

Gordon Brown: It was right to give the whole House the chance to debate the issue yesterday. We have said that we support in principle a third runway at Heathrow, but that is subject to being confident of meeting strict environmental conditions. Those are the conditions being reviewed by the Secretary of State for Transport at the moment.

Lynne Featherstone: I was leader of the opposition on Haringey council at the time of the Victoria Climbié tragedy, and I was told that lessons would be learned and that such a thing should never happen again. Yet it has happened again. Although I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday that Lord Laming would lead a national review of child protection services, in terms of Haringey that does not go far enough. I hear what the Prime Minister says about looking at the report, but that report will not guarantee the safety of children in my borough. I ask the Prime Minister to look at that report, but also to call for an independent public inquiry.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Lady has put the sets of issues that have to be addressed. The first set of issues that has to be addressed is about whether we can ensure the protection of children in all parts of the country following the Laming report after the Victoria Climbié case, and that we are determined to do. The second set of issues arises in Haringey itself, and the executive summary has already pointed to weaknesses in what is done there. The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families has received the report—now the full report—this morning, and he will take as quick action on that as is necessary and look at the procedures that need to be followed in Haringey itself.

Mark Todd: With the pre-Budget report approaching, will my right hon. Friend be asking his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the merits of a fuel duty stabiliser among his measures?

Gordon Brown: I think that the judgment of the shadow Chancellor on this matter does need to be questioned. The fuel duty stabiliser would mean that petrol, which is 97p a litre now, would have to rise today by 5p, and this is certainly not the right time to penalise motorists with a rise in petrol duty.  [ Interruption . ] Oh, yes—5p extra a litre; that is the Conservative policy.

Michael Spicer: What was the economic theory behind the end of boom and bust?

Gordon Brown: I explained a few minutes ago that we have been in a world where we have had high inflation combined with a credit crunch; now we are in a world where inflation is going down, and we have a credit crunch and a downturn. That is why we need new policies to deal with the matters ahead. The unfortunate thing is that the Opposition are still stuck in the old policy that failed in the past.

Natascha Engel: With the renewed emphasis on job creation, many local authorities have welcomed the financial support that the Government have provided in the form of the working neighbourhoods fund. Does my right hon. Friend think that this fund should be used to pay for town centre Christmas lights, however, as the Liberal Democrats have done in Chesterfield town centre?

Gordon Brown: The important thing at the moment is to do everything in our power to create jobs in every community, and that is what we will do.

Member Sworn

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
	Lindsay Roy Esq., for Glenrothes.

Point of Order

Andrew Rosindell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you undertake to investigate what I feel was an appalling breach of protocol yesterday—Armistice day—when the flag of our country was not flown from all the flagpoles on the parliamentary estate, most particularly No. 1 Parliament street and Portcullis House? Will you please look into this to ensure that such a breach does not occur on Remembrance day next year?

Mr. Speaker: I, of course, want to make sure that we respect our dead, especially on Remembrance day, so I will look into this matter for the hon. Gentleman.

Interest Rates (Maximum Limit)

Jim Devine: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a maximum limit for interest rates to be prescribed; and for connected purposes.
	This Bill would cap interest rates just above the Bank of England rate for store cards, loans and credit cards. During my research on the Bill, I was shocked by the charges that store cards and credit companies make. Burtons, Dorothy Perkins or Woolworths, for example, make a charge of 29.9 per cent. With an Argos payment card, interest can go up to 222.7 per cent. Someone who spends £1,000 on a Principles store card and makes only the minimum payment will need 15 years to clear that debt. Sadly, it is not just store cards that are the problem; companies that provide loans are even more outrageous. Provident Personal Credit charges 183 per cent. APR.
	Here is an example of what it means in practice. I have an excellent leaflet provided by South Lanarkshire Credit Union Network, which details exactly the consequences of a rate of 183 per cent. It identifies two characters, Mrs. Rush and Mrs. Wise. They both borrow £300—Mrs. Rush from the Provident and Mrs. Wise from the local credit union. They each pay back £9 per week. By week 36, Mrs. Wise has paid off her loan, and it cost only £12.50 in interest. Mrs. Rush has another 20 weeks of payments to make, and by week 56 has paid off her debt, but at a cost of £204 in interest.
	Sad to say, Provident is not the worst in this field. Last Sunday's  News of the World identified a company called Log Book Loans, which charges 437 per cent. APR. A person who borrowed £1,500 from this company would be forced to pay back up to £4,180 over an 18-month period. Even Log Book Loans is not top of the interest rate chargers chart. That title belongs to a company called Payday UK and Early Payday Loans, in Windsor. It charges an eye-watering 1,355 per cent. APR. Those companies specifically target workers who run out of cash before the end of the month. Those individuals have nothing to live on until the next pay day, and, crucially, they have no other means of borrowing.
	What all those companies have in common is that they target people in financial difficulties who in many cases have nowhere else to go. The banks, which we have now taken partly into public ownership, are charging interest rates of 29.9 per cent. Frankly, that is totally unacceptable. My Bill would limit the interest charges at a fixed rate above the base rate set by the Bank of England. I believe that a fair rate would be 5 per cent. above the base rate. I have had a lot of cross-party support, and other individuals are a bit concerned about that level. I want to stimulate a debate, but I believe that that is what the rate should be.
	It is interesting to look at what other countries do. It is reported in  The Guardian this morning that in America the average credit charges are between 9 and 11 per cent. As the base rate has been trimmed in America, so have the credit interest rates. While carrying out my research on this Bill, I did not find one company in Britain that has cut interest rates on its credit charges or store cards—

John Barrett: The very opposite—they have gone up.

Jim Devine: The hon. Gentleman says that they have gone up, and that is the case. It is absolutely scandalous.
	In Germany, credit interest is regarded as an abuse if a company charges twice as high as the market interest rate. In Denmark, where there is no fixed rate, a lending company was taken to court for charging 33 per cent. APR, and it was forced to reduce the rate to 16 per cent.
	The time has come for the Bill. I welcome the my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's comments at Question Time that he would bring in such companies and call them to account. I think that he should do more. We need to introduce legislation to cap interest rate charges. We need to highlight the cost to individuals of taking out a loan with the sort of companies and shops that I mentioned. We need to promote credit unions and the benefit that they bring to local communities. It is sad to report that the Scottish National party Government have abolished the ring-fenced money that the Labour-led Administration had introduced to promote and encourage credit unions. That is a disgrace.
	This place needs to tell the people of Britain that, during difficult times, we are on their side, and to send the message that, during the credit crunch, it is time to crunch the credit charges.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jim Devine, Mr. Mohammad Sarwar, John Bercow, Keith Hill, Mr. Brian Binley, Mark Durkan, Ms Katy Clark, Mr. Tom Clarke, John Barrett, Mr. David Anderson and Jon Cruddas.

Interest rates (maximum limit)

Mr. Jim Devine accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for a maximum limit for interest rates to be prescribed; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed [Bill 162].

Business of the House

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that a full list of selected amendments has been published.

Chris Bryant: I beg to move,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on:
	(1) the Motions in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to Regional Accountability, Regional Select Committees, Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees and Regional Grand Committees, not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion;
	(2) the Motions in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to European Scrutiny (Standing Orders) and Modernisation of the House of Commons (Changes to Standing Orders) not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and
	(3) the Motion in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to the Speaker's Conference not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion;
	such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
	We have tried to introduce the measures as quickly as possible, partly because some of them lapse at the end of the Session and therefore need to be renewed, while others lapse at the end of the year and also need to be renewed. We wanted to ensure that that could happen on one parliamentary day.
	We tabled the business motion a full week in advance of today's debate so that hon. Members could have full notice of the way in which we intended to proceed. That is earlier than we have sometimes been able to table business motions and I hope that it has assisted hon. Members.
	We are keen to allow time for votes, given that there may be several this afternoon, and it would wrong for them to eat into the time allowed for debate. Consequently, we have created three discrete debates of one and a half hours on regional accountability and the various measures that need to be rolled over into the next Session

Peter Bone: The Deputy Leader of the House talks about time for debate, but I do not understand how there can be time when there is already a five-minute limit on speeches if the motion is accepted.

Chris Bryant: I may be able to bind the House together by saying that, in my experience, a three-minute speech by me is just as good as a 57-minute speech.

Patrick Cormack: Quite right.

Chris Bryant: Even the hon. Gentleman is with me. We have tried to allow sufficient time for debate. Several Members said that we should have more time to debate the Speaker's Conference because it constitutes a significant departure in that we have not had one for many years. Some suggested that we should take time from the regional accountability debate and give it to the European scrutiny debate. We have tried to provide a balanced afternoon.
	We have tried to restrict the business to one day because of the current economic position throughout the world and in this country, and the many requests that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and I hear every Thursday for debates on many other subjects. For us to debate our own procedures for more than a day might be inappropriate.

Mark Harper: First, the House has not had the opportunity to debate the economic situation in Government time, so that is a poor excuse for limiting debate on these important motions. Secondly, the debate may need to be limited to one day, but the length of that parliamentary day does not need to be fixed. There is no need for the business motion to limit the length of the debates and business does not need to finish at 7 pm. We could run the debate for as long as it takes, and those Members who want to participate could stay as long as they wish.

Chris Bryant: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has fully understood the Order Paper. Under the statutory provisions on the Members' Fund, we may well go on beyond 7 pm, because that debate must last for one and a half hours. We have made provision to enable that to happen after the moment of interruption this evening.
	These measures need to be debated and it is more important that we get on to those debates than we continue debating the arrangements for them.

Theresa May: I certainly agree with the Deputy Leader of the House that it is good that the Government gave rather longer notice of the business motion than they normally do, but that is about all I can agree with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) so clearly pointed out, it is no argument to use the economic crisis as an reason for restricting debate about whether we are going to spend up to £2 million of taxpayers' money on setting up eight more regional Select Committees and Grand Committees, or on whether the European Scrutiny Committee should continue to meet in private and not in public. We have not had a debate on the economic crisis in this country in Government time. I have consistently asked for such a debate, but the Government have consistently resisted that request.
	The motions are significant and need proper time for debate. On the first set on regional accountability, the Select Committee's report was pushed through only on the casting vote of the Leader of the House as Chairman, but we will have only one and a half hour's debate on those motions. The issue of European legislation is of great concern to many of our constituents. Some 50 per cent. of our legislation comes from Europe, but the question of how this Parliament should examine it will be debated for only one and a half hours. Frankly, the business motion is outrageous. Far more time is needed for both those issues.
	The Deputy Leader of the House also said that the Speaker's Conference is significant. If so, why does he propose to restrict debate on it to one hour? The business motion is farcical, and I urge hon. Members to vote against it.

Simon Hughes: I share the strength of feeling of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). This motion is a complete abuse of the Government's powers. Since we came back in October, we have had days and days on which the House has finished early. We have had days and days on which we have had no votes at all, but we are still told that we do not have time to discuss amendments and new clauses to Bills, which were tabled by both Labour and Opposition Members.
	Now we come to this controversial motion—the Leader of the House knew that it was controversial from the moment that the Modernisation Committee discussed it. It was only because she was lucky enough to get a new member on to the Committee the night before the issue was discussed that she even had the opportunity to use her casting vote to get it through. Colleagues want to speak on the issue of regional Select Committees.
	The Deputy Leader of the House has suggested that it is relatively less important that we have time to discuss this internal business. It matters to the working of Britain's democracy whether we have regional Select Committees, how they are composed, how much travel they do and whether we should pay the Chairman; it matters whether the European Scrutiny Committee sits in private or in public; and it matters whether we have a Speaker's Conference, under your chairmanship, Mr. Speaker, about making ourselves more representative.
	Those are important matters, but the Deputy Leader of the House has argued that these issues must be timetabled, because otherwise we would eat into the time for important business. He suggested that we need to debate the state of the economy, but it was my colleagues who initiated the debate on the economy on Monday, not the Government. We still have not had a debate on the economy in Government time. Wednesday is the day when most colleagues are here, so there is no reason at all why we cannot have a debate that is not timetabled to discuss such matters in turn. Some colleagues are willing to attend this place on a Wednesday afternoon and a Wednesday evening, and some colleagues do not have to disappear at 6.30 or 7 o'clock this evening to do other things.
	We are willing to earn our money and do the job properly, and it is about time that the Government realised that this is the price that they will pay. They will be criticised every time they introduce business motions of this sort, because they are still insisting that the business of the House is decided by the Executive, not by Parliament. Until we get Parliament deciding Parliament's business—not the Executive, whatever party or combination of parties is in power—we will not be doing our job properly.
	This is a complete abuse of the Government's powers in this place, and I hope that colleagues on both sides of the House—Labour Back Benchers and Opposition Members—will oppose the business motion.

Douglas Hogg: I rise to support what the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has just said. Like him, I think that this is an abuse. I think, too, that many hon. and right hon. Members are prepared to sit late tonight on a matter of this importance. After all, those of us who have been Members of the House some little time always used to be here until 10 o'clock, without particular inconvenience. It may be that people now make different arrangements or want to get to their constituencies early on a Wednesday or have pressing engagements at freebie dinners, but that is not a first priority for hon. and right hon. Members.
	I want to make a few general points. First, there is a general principle that in a democratic body, Members who wish to express a view on matters of importance should be able to do so. Of course it is true that that is often a bore. Many of us are boring— [Interruption.] That is good of my hon. Friends, but it is also true that some of us are boring at least some of the time. However, one burden of being a Member of the House is to put up with bores.
	I was on the Front Bench as a Government Whip for quite a long time. By God, it was boring, but I at least recognised that part of the process of a democratic House is to listen to views. The point has already been made that quite significant issues are being discussed in the first group of motions—I think that all the issues are significant. If one reflects just for a moment on how many right hon. and hon. Members will intervene, one sees how inadequate the time will be. There will be Front-Bench spokesmen for the two leading parties and a Front-Bench spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. Then somebody from the Modernisation Committee will be called, after which one or two illustrious parliamentarians will doubtless be called to speak. When the House has exhausted that lot, there will be very little for the rest of us, unless of course we fall into the category of illustrious parliamentarian.
	Even with a limit of five minutes, which you have imposed, Mr. Speaker, very few Back Benchers will get into the debate, but if one looks at the kind of issue that will be raised in relation to the first grouping, one sees how important they are. Right hon. and hon. Members will be demanding an answer to the question, Is there a need for these regional Select Committees? Can the House staff them in terms of parliamentarians and House of Commons staff? Can the House justify the cost of £2 million or so, which is quite considerable? Will this proposal extend the powers of patronage available to those on the Front Benches? That is an important issue, because some Members will pay quite a lot in terms of their independence to sit on these regional Select Committees, and I am not sure that I want to give the Government, or even my own Front Benchers, a power of patronage.
	Incidentally, if the Chairman is to be paid, that will be another significant bit of patronage available to those on the Front Bench. I ask myself, "Are those not questions that need to be ventilated by as many people as want to speak?"

Simon Hughes: I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has seen them, but there have been two articles in the press in the last week suggesting that the new, or reinstated, Government Chief Whip would not allow Labour Members to become members of a Select Committee if they have ever voted against the Government. Therefore, the only people who would go on the Select Committee would be people— [Interruption.] I am not sure that there will be enough to serve all the Committees. It seems to me that that is absolutely a further abuse of the system, which we ought to discuss.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We should remember that we should be talking about how much time has been allocated to this matter, or the lack of time. We should certainly not be discussing the merits of the argument. That comes at a later stage.

Douglas Hogg: Of course I understand that, Mr. Speaker. All I was seeking to do by identifying some of the issues was to make the point that lots of right hon. and hon. Members will want to intervene on an issue of this kind. That is particularly true in relation to the European Scrutiny Committee, because whether the Committee sits in private or in public is a matter of real concern, and I am sure that lots of right hon. and hon. Members will want to intervene on it. The time limits in the business motion are simply inadequate.

Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the whole reputation of the House suffers if important Select Committees, when taking evidence from distinguished witnesses, are unable to achieve a quorum? That has happened on many occasions. If we are to establish another eight Select Committees, it will be even more difficult for Select Committees of the House to achieve a quorum. Talking about the House as a whole, the House itself will suffer because fewer and fewer Members will be able to attend debates. Maybe that is what the Government want.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend's point is important. It is discourteous to witnesses if the Committee is not quorate. I have no doubt, too, that if we set up more and more Select Committees, or regional Select Committees, we will take away from the Chamber, which is undesirable. He and I have been in this place for a very long time, and we happen to believe that this Chamber is the main forum of debate, rather than elsewhere, although I acknowledge that elsewhere can be important.

Chris Bryant: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I respect him in many regards. He also knows, as a former Whip, that as the motion has been on the table for a week, he or any other Member, including the two Front Benchers who have already spoken, could well have tabled an amendment to increase the time available for debate. I am sure that we would have listened to what they had to say.

Douglas Hogg: I have participated in many debates on timetable motions, and I have tabled amendments on occasion. I think that I can say without any fear of contradiction that I do not recall this Government, on any occasion when I have participated, extending the time available in a business motion. They have never shown any willingness to respond to Back Benchers' concerns.

Theresa May: I apologise, but I cannot recall whether my right hon. and learned Friend was at business questions last Thursday, but I point out to him and to the Deputy Leader of the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) raised exactly that point about there not being enough time for proper debate on the motions. It was therefore entirely open to the Leader of the House to take the view of the House from business questions and change the motion.

Douglas Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, because I was here when my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) made that point. I also remember that when he made it, there was a lot of chuntering of agreement from those on the Back Benches, which should have indicated to those on the Government Front Bench that there was a lot of support for what he was saying.

Mark Harper: The response from the Deputy Leader of the House missed the point: it is not that we want an amended business motion; we do not want a business motion at all. We want to be able to take the business until the House has finished dealing with it. The point is that this is an occasion on which the Government could have left well alone and not had a business motion at all.

Douglas Hogg: I think it is just possible that the House would rise anyway at 7 o'clock if we did not have a business motion. Probably, there is a requirement for a business motion, but it should not be time limited in this way. Speaking personally, I would hope that the House is willing to sit to at least 10 o'clock to deal with this business.

Peter Bone: Before my right hon. and learned Friend concludes his opening remarks, will he indicate for the benefit of those such as myself how long, from his experience, this debate and each part of the individual motions might take, in order to help the House make a decision on this business of the House motion?

Douglas Hogg: Obviously I do not know how many hon. Members have sought leave to speak, but I would have thought it fair to allow three hours for the first group of amendments, with two or three hours thereafter. However, I do not know how many hon. Members wish to participate, so I cannot give my hon. Friend a sensible answer.
	These are not preliminary remarks; they are concluding remarks. I therefore conclude by saying that in a democratic House we must provide ample time for those who want to participate. True, some contributions will be repetitive, some will be otiose and some will be boring, but at the end of the day, that is the nature of a democratic House and that is what we should allow right hon. and hon. Members.

Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and agree with everything that he and the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said. It is not very often that I can say that about the hon. Gentleman, but I do so willingly and gladly today.
	There always has been and always will be tension between the Government and the Opposition in the House when the Executive are drawn from the legislature. When my right hon. and learned Friend sat on the Government Benches, he took a rather different view of such matters. When he was briefly and ingloriously a Whip, he was vociferous in expressing his view and expected the troops to fall into line. I think that I shall be allowed to breach this confidence after so many years, but I shall never forget the lecture that he gave to the 1922 committee on how we should behave ourselves and support the Government. I therefore obviously understand the Government's desire to push their business. However, this Government have gone more than a step too far and they are going many steps too far today. Everything that my right hon. and learned Friend said in that context was entirely right.
	I am tempted—I think that I could do it—to take advantage of this motion and speak until 7 o'clock. That would test your patience, Mr. Speaker, as well as that of my colleagues, and I would have to try hard to ensure that I was in order on every particular.

Douglas Hogg: I hope that you have not had too much coffee.

Patrick Cormack: I have had no coffee—indeed, I have not even had any lunch—and certainly nothing stronger. Speaking until 7 o'clock is a temptation, but one that I shall with some reluctance resist. However, it is important that we make our points forcefully.
	The Government have abused their position with regard to Parliament in many ways. I have said this many times, but it is an absolute scandal that the Modernisation Committee, once created, should have become the creature of the Government, by having the Leader of the House imposed as its Chairman. That is not the way that we have decided parliamentary matters in the past. If the next Conservative Government, whom I believe will be elected at the next general election, have the lack of wisdom to keep the Modernisation Committee—I hope that they will abolish it—they should certainly not allow the Leader of the House to chair it.
	The matter is brought into sharp focus today because the most controversial of the substantive motions, for which such inadequate time has been allocated today, were passed on the Leader of the House's casting vote. We then witnessed the ludicrous spectacle of the Leader of the House giving the Government's response to the report and saying that she agreed with herself. That was of course a wonderful revelation for many of us.
	To allow only an hour and a half for the regional debate is utterly wrong. In your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, you have rightly decided that speeches in that debate should be limited to five minutes, because you want as many hon. Members as possible to get in. Given that restraint, I hope that all three Front-Bench spokespersons will exercise self-restraint. I hope that we will not hear a lengthy speech from the Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House—much as I should enjoy listening to such a speech in other contexts—or the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. It is important that Back Benchers from all parts of the country should have an opportunity to express their views.
	I must try not to stray and deploy arguments that I will deploy later if I have the good fortune to get five minutes. However, there are questions of manpower and staffing to be answered. There is the question of why we need Select Committees if we are also to have, in my view perfectly properly, regional Grand Committees meeting, one hopes, in the regions to which they relate and on which all the hon. Members from that region will have the right to sit. I completely agree with that, but we should be able to debate the proposal at length. We should also be able to debate whether Chairmen should be paid and whether they should all sit on the Liaison Committee, which would thereby destroy it, by making it the most unwieldy Committee that the House will ever have seen.
	It is an insult to the intelligence of hon. Members and the House to say that all those issues should be debated in one and a half hours. Then we come to the other subjects that are to be discussed later. Although there might be a degree of urgency about some of them, there is not the same urgency about all of them. For instance, important as the suggestion is that you, Mr. Speaker, should chair a Speaker's Conference, we do not need to debate it until after Christmas. It could well be left to one side.
	Today should have been devoted to the regional issues and without time constraints, so that we could go on until 10 o'clock. That would have meant that everyone who had a view would have had the opportunity to express it. I suspect that even then, Mr. Speaker, you would have had to limit speeches to perhaps 12 or 15 minutes. I always remember the words of a vicar friend who told me, "If you haven't struck oil after eight minutes, stop boring." That would be fair enough and would have given hon. Members from all parts of the country the opportunity to take part in the debate.
	What is before us is not a programme motion; it is a steamroller motion designed to push through the Government's policy, not the House's wishes, and it is frankly appalling. In many ways, I wish that some of us had organised something of a conspiracy to ensure that we debated the issue until 7 o'clock, although it might not be too late.

William Cash: It is extremely early.

Patrick Cormack: It is very early indeed.

Andrew MacKinlay: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman patiently and have some sympathy for what he is saying. However, what has happened demonstrates not only the weakness of the Government, but the poverty of the Opposition. The Opposition have been asleep when they should have been kicking up— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but let me demonstrate my point. Most hon. Members I have spoken, to, Conservative and Labour, have said that they did not know that today's motions contain a provision for councillors to be co-opted on to regional Select Committees. It is the Opposition who should be providing the opposition, not me. They should have drawn attention to the issue much earlier.

Patrick Cormack: But when the hon. Gentleman so regularly and felicitously provides the opposition, we are delighted to have him on side. He is extremely perspicacious and sound on most House of Commons matters. Indeed, I am delighted that he has referred to participation by local councillors, which completely changes the complexion of Select Committees, as well as the very identity of Parliament.

David Curry: Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue of councillors is an example of how half-baked the Government's proposal is? The councillors are to be co-opted—the motion does not say by what mechanism—but they will not count towards the quorum and will be unable to vote. We will have token councillors—husks of councillors—and for that the House of Commons is giving up control of its own Committees.

Patrick Cormack: It is as if one had said that people in the Public Gallery could take part in debates in the House, or that anyone who was in a Public Bill Committee could chip in. It is ridiculous. It shows the Government's lack of appreciation of the place of Parliament and a cavalier disregard for what we are about in this place, and it is entirely at one with the cosmetic policies of the Leader of the House. She has never done anything other than pay lip service to her regard for Parliament since she occupied that position.
	I can see that you are getting restless, Mr. Speaker, because I should be talking about the timing. It is wrong to have only an hour and a half when there are, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) have so brilliantly illustrated, issues of such substance and revolutionary changes to discuss.

Peter Bone: As a very junior Back-Bench Member, one of the problems I have is that, when this sort of timetabling occurs, I am not able to speak on the subject. That is a matter of fact. The only way in which I am ever going to be able to speak on the subject is if the debate is extended to 7 o'clock, so that the motion lapses.

Patrick Cormack: I believe Mr. Speaker, that you made the point that speeches will be limited to five minutes. I very much hope that my hon. Friend will get one of those slots, as I hope I do. That is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. However, I take my hon. Friend's point, because it again illustrates that if there is a one-and-a-half-hour limit, we are dependent on speeches by Front-Bench Members being fairly restrained. We all know—you better than anyone, Mr. Speaker—that speeches from the Front Bench tend to be subject to interventions. That is perfectly reasonable. I would like the Leader of the House to limit her remarks to five minutes, but it is perfectly possible that she will provoke me or one of my hon. Friends—or many of them—to intervene. Before we know where we are, the Leader of the House will have spoken for 20 minutes. The shadow Leader of the House might be in the same position, having been intervened upon from the Labour Benches. That is perfectly legitimate, because it is right that those who have responsibility should be held to account at the Dispatch Box and that those who seek to challenge that responsibility from the Opposition Dispatch Box should also be able to defend their position. The same goes for the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. He is not the shadow Leader of the House—there is only one—but he is their spokesman on parliamentary matters, and it is important that he should be able to deploy, and answer for, his arguments.
	However, all that is supposed to happen in one and a half hours. I repeat that that is appalling.

Richard Ottaway: rose—

Patrick Cormack: I will give way in a minute.
	I would hope that, even at this stage, the Leader of House will give an indication, so that I can shut up and sit down, that she will withdraw the motion immediately. Why does she not do so? She would become the heroine of the House. We would all cheer her to the echo, and debate the matter. She has a once-in-a-lifetime chance for universal popularity on the Floor of the House of Commons—

Harriet Harman: indicated dissent.

Patrick Cormack: And she has rejected it.

Richard Ottaway: My hon. Friend is of course drawing attention to the importance of Select Committees and Grand Committees in scrutinising legislation. However, has he considered the fact that London is not mentioned in the proposals? We could have a situation in which Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have Select Committees—my hon. Friend chairs the Northern Ireland Committee with distinction—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Sir Patrick does not want to do anything other than debate the timing—

Richard Ottaway: I was coming to that point.

Mr. Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman is coming to that point, but I am saying that he can do so when we get to the motion proper. I call Sir Patrick Cormack.

Patrick Cormack: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, again, there will not be much time to make that point.

Bob Spink: Given that the people of the north-east of the country have already kicked the issue of regions into touch and that we will debate a much more substantive proposal today, does the hon. Gentleman agree that allowing one and a half hours for that debate is an insult to any concept of democracy?

Patrick Cormack: Of course it is. I hoped that I had started to make that point, but I am happy to echo those sentiments. It is an insult, and we must realise that we must also debate the manning of the proposed Committees. In some regions of the country, a party is represented very inadequately or hardly at all, yet it will have to have a majority.

David Heath: On that point, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not limit the time available to the Leader of the House to the extent that she cannot answer one simple question on the south-west. How can it possibly be right to pack a regional Select Committee for the south-west with Members of Parliament from outside the region, and for counties within the south-west not to be represented at all because of the arithmetic?

Patrick Cormack: The House ought to be discussing that at great length, because it amounts to imposing a Government majority in every part of the kingdom, even those parts that do not have or want such a majority.

William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Patrick Cormack: Of course I shall give way to my illustrious neighbour.

William Cash: I am exceedingly glad, and thank my hon. Friend very much.
	One point that we need to have in mind is that there is a motion relating to the change of Standing Orders. To apply an allocation of time motion to a motion relating to general questions is one thing; but to apply it to the Standing Orders of this House is taking the situation way beyond what is acceptable, for all the reasons given by my hon. Friend, but for many more that we will pursue for some time this afternoon.

Patrick Cormack: I could not agree more. Having only five minutes to try to deploy those arguments in the forensic way in which my hon. Friend deploys them is cruelty beyond measure.

Andrew George: Will the hon. Gentleman also reflect on the dilemma that many Back Benchers will experience? Given that 13 Members will be seeking to catch Mr. Speaker's eye during the one-and-a-half-hour debate, there are two ways in which Back Benchers will be able to probe the issue: first, they might be called to speak, which is perhaps a forlorn hope; and, secondly, by extending the Leader of the House's speech by intervening to probe her arguments. That is clearly a dilemma, because by doing the latter, one might reduce the amount of time available to speak later in the debate.

Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I referred to the need to intervene on speeches from the Front Bench, including his own. It is important that those who espouse policies defend them properly. They cannot do so if they merely get up, read speeches and sit down. Of course, intervention is an essential part of debate.
	It would be an improvement if Front-Bench speeches were excluded and if an hour and a half allocated to Back-Bench Members. I am in such a generous mood today that I will make another offer to the Leader of the House. If Mr. Speaker would accept a manuscript amendment to that effect, would she be willing to accept it? In other words, I should like her speech, that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), which I am sure will be brilliant, and that of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey—his might be a shade long, but I am sure it will be very good—to be exempted, so that the rest of us can have an hour and a half. If you were willing, Mr. Speaker, would the Leader of the House accept such an amendment? Ms Harman  indicated dissent.

Patrick Cormack: Good gracious. Every offer that I make on timing is spurned. I feel deeply dejected.

Mark Harper: In his intervention on my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) hit on another problem with the timetable motion on regional Select Committees and their composition. Of course, the political composition of each region is different. Really, we need to have a separate debate about the composition of each of the regional Select Committees, to see whether there are particular issues in regions such as the south-west, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. In one and a half hours, the House simply is not going to get that opportunity.

Patrick Cormack: That is right. Another issue that has to be debated within the one and a half hours is what happens to Members who already serve on a Select Committee, because there will have to be a degree of duplication. I have the honour of chairing the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs—a task that I greatly enjoy—and I have three exceptionally good Government members of that committee from the north-east. I can well imagine the dilemma that they would face. We ought to have time to debate that dilemma, but we will hardly have time to do so because in the five minutes allocated to each speaker—properly under the circumstances—it will be difficult effectively to make more than one or two points. Apart from the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the House who, as always, introduced the motion with good humour, no one has even begun to agree that this is a proper allocation of time.
	I will resist the temptation to speak for another five hours. I am almost inclined to give in to it—that, at least, would put me in the "Guinness Book of Records", which nothing else I have done in this place has so far.

William Cash: On that point, my hon. Friend is tempting fate. There are some who could keep the debate going not just for five hours, but for much longer. Indeed, Gladstone spoke for six and a half hours on a Budget debate.

Patrick Cormack: Well, he did have something of substance to talk about! I would not want to enter the verbosity stakes with my hon. and illustrious Friend. Perhaps we could do a charity competition on it one day, but that could hardly be in this House, because it would be for money, albeit for charity —[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, no less, wishes to intervene.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he not think that the House needs to hear more from the Deputy Leader of the House, who said a few moments ago that he was sure that, if an amendment had been tabled, the Government would have listened, showing that he was not necessarily wedded to this timetable motion. Should we not hear from him and then invite the Government to table a manuscript amendment to their own motion?

Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend who, as Chair of the Procedure Committee, has a great background of knowledge in these matters. I have twice already made an offer about a manuscript amendment, but answer came there none. It is very sad indeed that the Deputy Leader of the House, having said effectively that an amendment would be accepted, has spurned by disdainful silence the two offers that have been made. Perhaps the Leader of the House would like to intervene to explain to me and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) what she would accept by way of amendment to this timetable motion. It is that motion that is making us very cross.
	Mr. Speaker is scrupulously right to ensure that we talk about the timing, which I am trying to do, but it is ludicrous that we have until 7 o'clock to debate timing issues and only one and a half hours to debate the substance. That is a perversion of parliamentary practice.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend has already made a general offer to the Government Front Benchers, but he may like to be a little more specific. I was asked how long I thought was needed. If my hon. Friend were to suggest three hours for the first group of motions, three hours for the second and two hours for the third, the Government might well find that they had the House's support. Would my hon. Friend consider putting that offer to the Government Front Benchers?

Patrick Cormack: Perhaps on the basis of third time lucky, I would be willing to do so. My first suggestion was spurned; my second suggestion, to exempt the three Front-Bench speeches from the hour and a half, was spurned; I now fall back upon what I shall call the Lincolnshire amendment. As a native son of Lincolnshire, I am delighted to do that, and I very much hope that the amendment will be accepted—if only out of a sense of affection for my native county and my right hon. and learned Friend's adopted county. I thus propose three hours for the first set of motions, three for the second and two for the third. Yet again I give the Leader of the House or the Deputy Leader of the House the opportunity to confirm that they would accept such a manuscript amendment. I wait with bated breath for intervention from the Rhondda or from Peckham.

Mark Harper: The Government do not seem to want to accept my hon. Friend's offer, but his proposed time allocation has highlighted another problem, showing that it would be much better if we ran with the mood of the House. The third part of the motion deals with setting up a Speaker's Conference—subject matter that could have the most dramatic effect on the electoral system and the composition of the House, and from which there could be some important proposals. I do not think that we should be relegating such an important issue to third place in the allocation of timing, as the House might want to spend a great deal of time thrashing out the terms of reference that it wants to give Mr. Speaker. That might well need more than two hours, so we should see how long the House wants to take.

Patrick Cormack: I agree, of course, in principle with my hon. Friend. A number of hon. Members were in the House when timetabling did not exist unless a guillotine was brought in on a specific Bill and voted on by the House—a much fairer and better way of doing things. Now, before we embark on any discussion, we are told how long we have; and when a Bill goes into Committee, we are told when it will come out of Committee. My hon. Friend, as a good parliamentarian, is right: we should have an open-ended debate on these issues. The Chair always has the opportunity to accept a closure motion—something that has been in the possession of the Speaker or the occupant of the Chair since time immemorial. That is fine and as it should be if, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham says, we tend to bore—although I hope I am not doing so at the moment.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman is making what I consider to be a wonderful speech. May I take him back to the Lincolnshire amendment suggesting three hours, three hours and two hours? If that were accepted and we commenced the first set of provisions on Regional Select Committees at 2 o'clock, which is not beyond the realms of possibility, we could then conclude the business at 10 o'clock tonight, which does not seem an extraordinary length of time to consider three such important motions. Will the hon. Gentleman please put that suggestion again to the Leader of the House?

Patrick Cormack: I am ready for an intervention by the Leader of the House at any moment. If she or her deputy would accept such a motion, debate would end, as the hon. Gentleman so rightly points out, at approximately 10 o'clock. That cannot be too late for anyone.

John Bercow: It seems to me that denunciation of the idea that councillors should be able to be co-opted could itself absorb a significant number of hours, because we will be creating, in my view, a wholly undesirable precedent. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would have been perfectly possible to deal with the regional accountability issues in a discrete and dedicated fashion on a day that is being used for a general debate which has simply been shoe-horned in to ensure that an otherwise incomplete day can somehow be made complete?

Patrick Cormack: As always, my hon. Friend speaks—at least on parliamentary matters—a very great deal of sense, and I entirely agree with him. I cannot talk about it right now, but the concept of hybridity, which is to be transferred from Bills to Committees, is a parliamentary innovation of revolutionary proportions. That alone deserves a full day's debate.

George Young: Is my hon. Friend aware that, under the present business motion, the House could sit for long after 10 o'clock? This debate can go on until 7 o'clock; we then have an hour and a half on the next item, on which there could be seven Divisions, exempted from the time allotted; and then we go on to other matters. In that case, is not 10 o'clock actually earlier than the time allotted for debate under the Government's own proposition?

Patrick Cormack: It is indeed. With the exemplary skill in these matters of which my right hon. Friend stands possessed, he has drawn attention to a logic of the position that has escaped those who do not understand logic.

William Cash: My hon. Friend has spoken of the importance of parliamentary rules and the constitutional position which is being invaded by this disgraceful episode. Is he aware that in, I believe, 1886, during the enormous battles between the Irish Members and the rest of the House, the Speaker—and I say this with great respect to the present incumbent of the Chair—capitulated to an understanding arrived at between the two Front Benches that the Standing Orders, otherwise known at that time as the Speaker's Rules, should be taken away from Mr. Speaker and conferred on the Executive? A former Clerk of the House rightly said that that was the moment at which democracy in the House came under the most severe threat, and that he did not think it would return until we dealt with the problem of the Executive's having control over the Standing Orders.

Andrew MacKinlay: That Parnell has a lot to answer for.

Patrick Cormack: I do not think it was Parnell in this case. I believe that my hon. Friend was referring indirectly to Speaker Gully—or would it be Speaker Brand? I think it was Brand. Anyway, one of them certainly granted a concession from which successive generations of Members of this House have undoubtedly suffered, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), with his grasp of the history of the last century but one—although he was not here at the time; it was his ancestor Bright who was—has done us a great service by referring to that.
	Let me return to the central argument, which is that we make a mockery of this place if we do not have adequate time in which to debate important issues.

David Curry: Is not one of the reasons why the time allowed is so inadequate that so much in this proposition is still unknown and unexplored? For instance, one of the motions refers to "specified elected councillors". Has my hon. Friend added up all the councillors in Yorkshire and the Humber, or in the south-east region, and wondered by what process they are to be boiled down to an acceptable number if we are not to see municipal mayhem across the land?

Patrick Cormack: I know roughly how many councillors there are in Staffordshire, and I know that Staffordshire is only one part of what is called the west midlands, and I know what a terrible job it will be deciding who should represent whom from those bodies; so of course my right hon. Friend is right.
	I have spoken of the need for self-denial on the part of the Leader of the House in her speech because of this ridiculous one-and-a-half-hour limit, but it really is her duty to explain to the House why all these suggestions and proposals are being made, and in doing so, she ought to be open to probing questions in intervention after intervention. I can well imagine that she herself will be on her feet for an hour and a half, and indeed it may be necessary for us to ensure that she is.

William Cash: She is not doing it.

Patrick Cormack: Well, if she is not doing it, at least it will be done with some jocularity by her deputy.

William Cash: The Leader of the House is not doing it; the Deputy Leader of the House is doing it. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, however, the Leader of the House has a responsibility to get to her feet and do it.

Patrick Cormack: Between them, they have a duty to engage in a parliamentary duet that will at least explain what all this is about.

David Heath: While the hon. Gentleman is illuminating the duties of the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House, I wonder whether he is as perplexed as I am by the fact that they both have responsibilities to the House as a whole. This is not Government business; it is business of the House. Is it not odd, therefore, that the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader are not listening to the voices of Members in all parts of the Chamber and trying to accommodate the wishes of the House, clearly expressed, by accepting one, or any, of the hon. Gentleman's proposals?

Patrick Cormack: For some years, the hon. Gentleman occupied with great distinction the position now held by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, who has just popped out to do something or other. He has underlined the unique role—I use the word "unique" properly—of the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House is, of course, a member of the Executive, and is, of course, a leading member of the Government of the day. However, the Leader of the House also has a responsibility that transcends those party political duties.
	During my time in the House, we have had a number of very distinguished Leaders of the House who have exemplified that. I think of the late John Biffen, who, in my 38 years here, was perhaps the Leader of the House par excellence; but I also think of the late John Silkin, who was a man of great probity, a learned man, and a man who, when he was Leader of the House, considered it his duty to stand up to his fellow members of the Executive to defend the rights of the House. That is something that—with great respect—the right hon. and learned Lady, the present Leader of the House, has singularly failed to do.
	I do not know, of course, who insisted on the one and a half hours, but it may be that the Leader of the House was told that that was all she could have. I doubt it, because she is supposed to be in charge of the timetable, but if she was leant on, that was disgraceful, and if she did the leaning, that was even more disgraceful.

Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was wrong for the Leader of the House to impose a time limit of one and a half hours on some of the motions when she must have known that they were extremely controversial and would be strongly opposed by at least two parties in the House, and to use her casting vote in the Modernisation Committee to get the necessary resolutions through? She should have allowed more time, because she must have appreciated the controversial nature of the motions.

Patrick Cormack: I entirely agree. As a fellow Select Committee Chairman, I would never, ever use a casting vote to force a measure through. Indeed, that is against the tradition of the Chair. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if there is a tie in a vote in the House and you are in the Chair, you must vote to preserve the status quo, not to bring in innovation. The rules oblige you to do that, they oblige Mr. Speaker to do that, and they oblige those of us who chair Committees as members of the Speaker's Panel to do that. I came very close to doing it on one occasion, but there was a majority of one, so I did not have to.
	Those are the rules; yet what the Leader of the House has done in this instance is use a casting vote in a partisan manner, then reply to the report, and then—piling Pelion on Ossa—decide that we can have only one and a half hours in which to discuss this topic. It really is a disgrace.

David Curry: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that if the Prime Minister were aware of the timetables being imposed today, he would be very cross indeed? When he became Prime Minister, did he not spell out the extent to which the House would be given more freedom and he would take more notice of the House? Is it not inconceivable that the Prime Minister knows about this, and should not the Leader of the House telephone him and be told to stop it?

Patrick Cormack: Yes, and I am happy to speak for long enough to allow the Leader of the House to go and make that telephone call. It would be right for her to do so, because, as my right hon. Friend correctly reminds the House, when the Prime Minister assumed office in June last year—17 June, if my memory serves me correctly, although it seems much longer—he said that he wanted to return Parliament to the centre of national life, and that he wanted Parliament to have a special role. Well, this does not give Parliament a special role. We have one and a half hours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in which to discuss issues that affect, in so many minute particulars, every one of your constituents and every one of mine.
	This will change the balance of representation. The hybridity of the Committees will change the nature of parliamentary Committees. How can we advance the arguments—I am rightly not allowed to advance them now, despite the fact that I have the time to do so, I would like to do so and I think that I could do so—when the debate is held, because in the one and a half hours available none of us will have the time to develop and deploy them? I hope that even at this stage and even after several offers—this is offer number five or six—the Leader of the House or her deputy will get to that Dispatch Box to say, "Look, you have made your point. It is sensible that the House should have a little more time, and we are going to give you some." Even another hour would be something.

Peter Bone: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is being unfair to the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House. Is it not normal that these matters are discussed by the usual channels and an agreement is reached? I wonder whether one of the super-glued duo could tell us whether that was the case.

Patrick Cormack: When someone talks of the usual channels, I am always reminded of Tony Benn, who said that they were the most polluted waterways in Europe. I would have hoped that the usual channels would have been flushed out for this purpose and that a proper sitting down to a discussion would have taken place. However, I infer from the remarks made by the shadow Leader of the House that no proper offer was made. She made some extremely pertinent points both in her speech today and last week. I know that, in making these points, I carry her with me, because she sits on the Modernisation Committee and saw at first hand how this was pushed through on a casting vote. Yet, she was not asked whether an hour and a half would do or whether she would like two and half hours or three hours. When it is a House of Commons matter, not a party political one, then that, above all times, is when consultation should be undertaken.

Nicholas Winterton: May I raise with my hon. Friend an important matter that emanated from an intervention by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay)? He indicated that few Members to whom he had spoken knew the content of the Modernisation Committee's report. Is it not appropriate that the House as a whole should be made more acquainted with the dramatic changes proposed in respect of Select Committees and their membership prior to the House's reaching a decision following a debate? This matter should be brought to the attention of the whole House before we have a debate on the individual motions.

Patrick Cormack: It would be a wonder to behold if every Member had read a report before it is debated. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has clearly gone to phone the Prime Minister, but the point he made a few minutes ago obviously came about because he had discovered that his colleagues had not known about this proposal. To be fair, if we had met Conservative colleagues in the Tea Room, we would have probably found a similar degree of ignorance as to whether this could conceivably be done in our name—it is being done in our name.

Greg Knight: A few moments ago, my hon. Friend referred rather disparagingly to the usual channels. When the previous Conservative Government sought to change the procedures in this place—the subsequent reforms became known as the Jopling reforms—I was asked by the then Prime Minister, Sir John Major, to negotiate with the official Opposition. My instructions were, "If the Labour party does not like it, drop it." What is offensive about what we are being asked to do today is that the proposals do not come from a unanimous and united Modernisation Committee; they come from a Committee in which they were decided on the Chairman's casting vote.

Patrick Cormack: Absolutely. Of course, I withdraw, without reservation and with humble apology, any aspersion that my right hon. Friend might have thought I cast on his record as deputy Chief Whip. I was not casting any such aspersion; I was merely citing one of Tony Benn's more hilarious utterances. I must remind my right hon. Friend that in the brief time when, sadly, he was absent from our company, I was part of the usual channels for a short period—three years, in fact—and, thus, I endorse absolutely what he says. I know that his remark about the Jopling proposals was true; John Major tried to operate on the basis of consensus, and to a large degree he succeeded in that regard. I also know that Select Committee reports are all the more powerful when they have cross-party support and when they are unanimous. I take great pride in the fact that my Select Committee's reports have been unanimous when we have been reporting on crucial issues—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been addressing the House for 45 minutes without there being a need for a touch on the tiller. Perhaps that moment has now arrived, because I detect a certain amount of repetition and a tapping into the seam of history, and I think I ought to direct him back to the substance of the procedural motion before the House.

Patrick Cormack: Of course, from time to time, we are all led astray, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but when one is led astray by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, perhaps the temptation is forgivable—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps one of the most worrying things that the House has heard today is that the hon. Gentleman could be led astray.

Patrick Cormack: Mea culpa, many times, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I have been trying reasonably hard to relate my remarks to this appallingly short space of time that we are being given to debate these crucial issues, and I think that I have generally done so accurately.

Mark Harper: I listened carefully to Mr. Deputy Speaker's admonition, so this relates directly to the time available for this debate. The only Member to raise the issue of the potential costs of the measures was my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House. We are facing great economic challenges, and the memorandum prepared by the Management Board for the House shows that the cost of the proposals will be at least £1.3 million. The House needs to be able, in its time-honoured tradition of debating expenditure, to examine the costs of the proposals in detail, and we are not going to be given the time to do so under this business motion.

Patrick Cormack: This, of course, relates to the business motion. We are being allowed 180 minutes, which works out at £100,000 or so a minute—they are quite expensive minutes, even for this Government.

Bob Spink: Has the hon. Gentleman made any estimate of how much of the 90 minutes being given to the debate on regional Select Committees would be needed to discuss and consider the excellent amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats? They propose to add London to the list of relevant regions, and to ensure that members of such Committees are drawn from those
	"who represent constituencies within the relevant region".
	That is an eminently sensible suggestion. An amendment has also been tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who proposes to exclude councillors from these meetings, and I am sure he will be joined by Members from both sides of the House, including myself, on that.

Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is right about all those amendments. It is a red letter day indeed when I can say that all the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats have my support, but I think that is the case today on this parliamentary matter—most of their amendments certainly have my support. He rightly says that the Members moving amendments of such substance and import ought to have a proper opportunity to explain them. Five minutes, or even the extra time that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey might take, is not very long. The hon. Member for Thurrock would certainly be limited to five minutes to discuss his amendment, which is of great substance and merits a full discussion on the Floor of this House.

David Heath: I certainly welcome the hon. Gentleman into our big tent. Let me bring him back to the point that he was making until he was perhaps led astray by his colleague. We need the time in the debate to try to establish consensus. Reforms of parliamentary structures have to be built on consensus; otherwise they cannot endure. A reform based on the simple majority of one party in defiance of the views of every other party in the House will not endure. That is a significant point, I think.

Patrick Cormack: It is a very significant point. It is right that we ought to have far longer than an hour and a half to discuss such a crucial issue. It is a departure from parliamentary traditions. We have always tried, when altering our procedures, to do so on the basis of a large degree of consensus, if not total unanimity. To tease out from the Government why they are trying to do things might even conceivably—although it is highly unlikely—convert some to their point of view. However, there is not the time for conversion. Even Paul needed the journey to Damascus—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of moving to the general from the particular, and I must guide him back to the particular.

Patrick Cormack: Obviously, I am always obedient to the Chair. I was merely saying that debating these matters requires time, and we are discussing the time that we are being allocated. Before you came to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker—so I cannot blame you for not knowing this— I made the point that it is a travesty of parliamentary procedure that we have until 7 o'clock to discuss the timing and then only an hour and a half to discuss the substance. It is my contention—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Now I know that the hon. Gentleman is being repetitious, because he has made that point before. The Chair may be put in the position of having to judge for how long this debate should go on, and one factor in that is how many hon. Members are seeking to catch the eye of the Chair. I drop that hint to the hon. Gentleman.

Patrick Cormack: I have taken many interventions. I shall not repeat a single word that I have said. I was only doing so out of charity given the fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you were not in the Chair when I made that point.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is being extremely generous in giving way. With his great experience of this place, will he help a junior Member by explaining to me why the Government, in the past few days, have tried to sneak this programme motion through at the end of business? It is only because hon. Members have objected to it that we are having a debate on it today.

Patrick Cormack: That is a very good point. Would that I could see into the mind of Peckham, but I cannot. I do not know why the Leader of the House did it. To try to smuggle something through like that reminds me of a story in one of my favourite childhood books, "Mr. Midshipman Easy", where the maid gave birth to a child and tried to hide it on the basis that it was only "a little one". Perhaps the Leader of the House was trying to hide the motion on the basis that it was only a little one.

Simon Hughes: I can answer the question that was put to the hon. Gentleman. In business questions last week, the Leader of the House said:
	"The issues are clear, and an hour and a half should be enough to discuss them."—[ Official Report, 6 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 364.]
	That was her view.

Patrick Cormack: "The issues are clear". Well, they are not clear. That has been brought out by intervention after intervention, perhaps most pertinently by the hon. Member for Thurrock, who referred to the council co-option point and the hybridity of the Committees, as I have called it. I shall not repeat myself, but I said earlier that the Leader of the House or her deputy must have the opportunity to explain with clarity what all this is about. I want to be able to tell my constituents what it is about. I want to tell my constituents what will happen if I am drafted to a Committee in the north-east and am therefore unable to look after the interests of the west midlands. That is the sort of thing that I want to discuss in the hour and a half that we will have.

Greg Hands: May I take my hon. Friend back to a point raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) about the rights and opportunities for new Back Benchers to participate in these debates? I think that that is being severely curtailed.
	I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) to comments made today in  The Guardian by the Leader of the House. She said:
	"If people see the Commons as a narrow and self-serving elite...then the Commons has no legitimacy."
	However, through her actions today, with these guillotine motions, she is doing precisely that by preventing there being a wide cross-section of voices in these debates.

Patrick Cormack: I am always grateful to have my attention drawn to  The Guardian, because it contains some interesting articles. It is a pity that the Leader of the House does not read more of them and write fewer of them. She might have been able to write an article justifying the limit of one and half hours, but I doubt it.
	All the offers that have been made to the Leader of the House and her jovial deputy to table a manuscript amendment to extend the time at our disposal, which have been spurned, could be taken up even at this late stage—or one of them could.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend responded to an intervention from the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who outlined why the Leader of the House felt that this limited time should be available. The excellent note prepared by the Library ahead of the debate, entitled "Regional Accountability at Westminster", sets out on page 9 why the Leader of the House, who chairs the Modernisation Committee, should have been aware of the controversy surrounding the matter. It states that she had to use her casting vote on the Committee on no fewer than three occasions because the Committee was split "equally". If that is not a good example of why the House needs more time to explore the issues to give all Members from all parties the opportunity to contribute, I do not know what is.

Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend does a great service to us, as he has done in several of his interventions. He has referred to the debt that we owe the Library. Whatever one says about the Library of the House of Commons, nobody can ever say that its publications are partisan, biased or flimsy. It does a wonderful service to us all. Anyone reading the notes produced by the Library would, I am sure, come to the immediate conclusion that to seek to dispose of such a highly controversial series of proposals in one and a half hours is appalling—let us remember that we could have as many as seven votes on them.

David Heath: We will.

Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman says that we will have seven Divisions. I rather share that view. I am sure that we will be voting shoulder to shoulder.
	The problem illustrates a point of timing. The time taken by the physical act of voting will be much longer than the time spent in debate. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), for whom I have very high regard, is most anxious to speak and thinks that I have spoken for too long. I have sought to demonstrate in my few remarks that the time that the House is being allowed is far too short. I hope that my hon. Friend, who is a noted parliamentarian, will be able to expand fully on some of the issues and to explain how important it is that we should have adequate time to debate not just the mechanics but the substance of the issue.
	I shall end, in a moment, where I began. The Leader of the House is treating the House with scant respect. She has forced through highly controversial proposals and she has now provided the House with a wholly inadequate timetable for the discussion of those proposals. She is the Leader of the House and she has the opportunity, even at this late stage—now that she has sensed the mood of the House from the interventions on my speech alone—to seek to extend that time. She can do that in a variety of ways. She is well versed in parliamentary procedures and she knows what they are. She can seek to move an amendment to withdraw one of the motions, or she can seek to extend the time on one or more of the motions. She has a range of possibilities, and exercising any one of them would reflect credit on her. It is a credit that at the moment she does not deserve.
	My hour is up.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). He made a brilliant speech that summoned into the Chamber first the Government Chief Whip and then, perhaps more worryingly, the Government Deputy Chief Whip, both of whom were inquiring about exactly what was going on.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire began by saying that he could not continue until 7 o'clock, but many of us will remember our late and much lamented friend Eric Forth. I think that he would have risen to the challenge and extended the debate.
	I want to add a short footnote to the four speeches that have been made already criticising this timetable motion. When the Deputy Leader of the House moved it, I do not think that he recognised the depth of feeling in the Chamber. I noticed that he said that the timetable motion had been drafted to allow time for votes. We are grateful for small mercies, but the House has not been allowed adequate time for debate. How can we vote sensibly if the guillotine motion has prevented us from debating?

Peter Bone: My right hon. Friend is making a point about the votes, but does he agree that there will be more time for the votes than for the actual debate?

George Young: It may be that, in protest at the way in which it is being treated, the House will feel provoked into calling Divisions that might not otherwise have taken place, thus bringing into reality what my hon. Friend has said.
	Already, the Government's timetable motion has provoked something that I have not seen before—a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches on a House matter. Recently, limits of 10 and 15 minutes have been imposed on speeches, but I think that a five-minute limit is virtually unprecedented, especially on a matter for the House. It seems clear to me that the Chair has been approached already by a large number of colleagues who wish to intervene.
	The Leader and Deputy Leader of the House cannot say that they were not warned about what would happen this morning. At last Thursday's business questions, I said that I saw
	"from the Order Paper that the right hon. and learned Lady proposes to restrict to 90 minutes the debate on that highly controversial and divisive motion, which was carried on her casting vote in a Select Committee. Between now and then, will she reflect on whether we should have more time to debate the matter?"
	I was swotted away. In her reply, which we have just heard from the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), the right hon. and learned Lady said:
	"The issues are clear, and an hour and a half should be enough to discuss them."—[ Official Report, 6 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 364.]
	With the benefit of what has happened over the past hour and half, I hope that she will concede that perhaps her response to me was wrong, and that an hour and a half is not enough—especially as we now have before us Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments. The first motion is timetabled for 90 minutes, and the Chair has deemed that seven separate subjects are worthy of discussion. They include whether we should have Select Committees as well as regional Committees, whether the Chairmen should be paid, whether London should be included, and whether the party balance should reflect the balance in the regions rather than in the House. Another matter to be determined is the pay of Select Committees.
	I have tabled amendment (a) to motion 7, and it has been selected for debate, but I am very worried that having only 90 minutes will not leave me time to move it and explain why it should be carried.

Mark Harper: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The first group of five motions are at least linked, as they are about regional government. However, the second group of two motions contains one entitled European Scrutiny (Standing Orders) and another entitled Modernisation of the House of Commons (Changes to Standing Orders). They are very different motions about different subjects, the second of which relates particularly to the time available to Back Benchers in topical debates. There is a danger that, with such a limited amount of time available, all of it will be focused on just one of those motions, while the other may not be debated at all.

George Young: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We will have the opening speeches from the Front Benches, but many of the amendments have been tabled by Back Benchers from both sides of the Chamber. I am concerned that those Back Benchers may not have time to move the amendments, and that the House will have to vote on them without having heard the arguments on either side. It cannot be in the interests of good governance so to curtail debate that we vote on important matters concerning the business of the House without having heard the arguments one way or the other.

John Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is a matter not just of good governance but of what people outside the House think of us? If we cannot carry out our own business within the sort of time needed for sensible discussion, people outside will feel very hurt.

George Young: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The Leader of the House has a responsibility to the whole House to make sure that we have enough time to discuss the issues before us, which are controversial. The Government have made it clear that they want their view to prevail, although they were unable to persuade a Committee of the House—putting aside the Ministers on it—that it was the right thing to do. Against that background, it is even more important that the House should hear the arguments on both sides before coming to a conclusion.
	Many other colleagues wish to speak in this debate, but I want to record my profound unhappiness at the length of time that we have been allocated. I repeat to the Leader of the House that I warned her that this would happen, and that there is still time for her to salvage something by rising on a point of order and indicating that she is happy to accept some of the propositions that we have heard. If she does that, we can move on to the substantive debate: if she does not do that, I fear that this procedural debate may go on a little longer.

Richard Shepherd: The deliberate intent behind all guillotine motions to stop people speaking. That is their outcome, and their purpose. In the history of this House, they have been treated very cautiously, with guillotines being imposed only for national events of great import, such as war. However, we have got to the stage where this most arrogant of Governments are now showing they have total control over the business on the Floor of the House of Commons and the way we identify issues of importance to us.
	All the points that I have been making in my 25 years in the House have been made in the debate already. We are no longer representative if we cannot speak on behalf of our constituents. Behind that, of course, is almost the oldest dictum in legal history—that our freedom and liberties lie at the interstices of procedure. That is what this is about: the Government tell us all the time that what happens in the House is boring to people outside, and that is why they can act in this way. No one pays attention to how we do our business, so why should we ourselves pay any attention to it?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) exposed the sheer sophistry of the Deputy Leader of the House and his casual approach to these matters. The Deputy Leader said that the motion had been on the Order Paper since last Thursday, so we could have proposed amendments to it. He is a former cleric, so we know that he understands that those who oppose the motion in principle do not want to compromise on that principle.
	That must be so, but the Deputy Leader has confronted the House with a matter of principle. The guillotine motion appeared on the Order Paper for both Monday and Tuesday and could have slithered through, but Members stayed behind on both nights to ensure that it did not. That is why we are here today, fighting for the business before us—but more than that: fighting for the justification and the rationale of our existence as a House of Commons.
	The Executive have so totally seized the Standing Orders and process of business of this House that they treat hon. Members with total contempt. That is what this is about. Why waste time in hearing the views of those who are sent by the constituencies of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to decide matters and raise issues of great importance for those whom they represent? Why trouble with them?

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. When the motion to curb debate moved from the back of the Order Paper on to the business pages, there were objections. On Monday night, he, I and others objected. That gave the most obvious signal to the Government, if they had not picked it up already, that Members were unhappy, and they could have come and talked to people. There was not a word of discussion yesterday, however, so we had to object again. Signals have regularly been sent; it is not as though we have not said to the Government, "This is not a good way to conduct your business."

Richard Shepherd: In those remarks lies the reasonableness of Members in conducting their business. The hon. Gentleman does not honestly believe, because experience has taught him otherwise, that the Government have the slightest intention of negotiating the business of the House. We have had no experience of that under this Government.

Jimmy Hood: Or the last.

Richard Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman did not sit in this House between 1992 and 1998; if he had, he could not make that statement. The Government of that time did not have a majority, and therefore could not insist in the way this Government do that they shall have every jot and iota of their business.  [Interruption.] I am sorry; I paused because I thought a Member was about to intervene.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Richard Shepherd: I should not have said that. Of course I shall give way.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that there have been examples in the past of Governments with large majorities who have understood that the business of the House—such as the issues we are discussing—is of such importance that we must all play our part in making decisions, and that they would have been ashamed not to have allowed that? The Leader of the House, given her professional career, would have been the first person to have objected to anyone behaving in this way.

Richard Shepherd: I am very grateful for that intervention, because it highlights the watershed in the treatment of House of Commons business during my parliamentary career, in that it has deteriorated to contempt. That is how strongly I feel. I should tell the House that I have neuralgia, and I am about to see a dentist, so perhaps I am being a bit tart or tough, but I want to emphasise how important the matter is.
	The Leader of the House dictated through the report entitled "Regional Accountability" that is supposedly the basis of some of the motion. As has been pointed out, three votes by the Chairman were required to break ties, including on the report being made to the House of Commons. Fortunately, the right hon. and learned Lady had to her right an acting Whip. He served the purpose of pointing out to the Labour members of the Committee concerned when to vote. His reward lies not in heaven, but in being the Deputy Leader of this House now. He did that not for Wales, and not for England, but for the deputy leadership of this House.
	I have been a Member of Parliament long enough to remember when we did not have a Deputy Leader of the House, as the leadership of the House was considered the most important function in the management of this House—in the political management and in terms of regard for the House. Mrs. Thatcher took business questions in her time. Prime Ministers, no less, were invariably the Leader of the House, because their authority and the basis of their power rested on having and controlling a majority. Now, however, it is anybody's old business, so when we have this dire report that required no consensus but just the Chairman's vote to assert it, we get a reply from the Government, and who from the Government replies on this? The document in question is entitled, "Regional Accountability: the Government's response to the Modernisation Committee's third report of session 2007-08". Remembering that the Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, the right hon. and learned Lady, is sitting in her place in this Chamber, let me point out that that document was
	"Presented to Parliament By the Lord Privy Seal, Leader of the House of Commons and Minister for Women and Equality By Command of Her Majesty".
	They are one and the same person. There is no distinction between them. That is what we have come to. We have now a person in post who neither understands this House nor has spent long on the Back Benches waiting to speak, and who has become a princess of New Labour and feels that all this—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman, with his distinguished record in the House, will recognise that if he wishes to make a speech that is critical of the Leader of the House, or any other Member, that would need to be done on a substantive motion. It ought not to be done under this timetable motion.

Richard Shepherd: I apologise. I am trying to explain why there is a sense of frustration that this House no longer has a personality. That should not just be seen in the context of a consideration of the times, although that is the central issue that determines how reduced we are, and serves to demonstrate it to those who send us here.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Richard Shepherd: I do not wish to speak for as long as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) so I am no longer inviting interventions.
	If we cannot speak on behalf of those who sent us here, what is our purpose? If Governments cannot take seriously the processes and purposes of the House of Commons, we are all lost. We must have a sense of ourselves, but this motion rejects that. The Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House tabled the subsequent motions and showed concern that we are debating this issue. They had this all wound up. There were attempts on Monday and Tuesday, and again today, to have an opportunity to speak on the virtues of these motions before us. They have now moved far from the Procedure Committee. They have seized the Standing Orders and the whole business of the House through the Modernisation Committee. As far as they were concerned, it had no purpose from the start and certainly not since the return from the summer recess. It has not even met. Its only purpose is to deliver yet more power into the Executive's hands.
	This issue matters to every one of us, from wherever we come. It is not just a question of "Hallelujah" to the passing Leader of the House, or whoever is the successor. This is about the belief that we are the representatives of the nation and about votes in this House, which are important—for the provision of Supply, which is the oil of Government, to name but one essential thing. This is an important matter, and it should be taken seriously. Until the Government learn that lesson, they who treat us with contempt will receive contempt.

Mark Harper: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly on this business motion.
	I want to clarify my intervention on my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) about the necessity for a business motion. I stand corrected, in that there needed to be a business motion to make sure the House did not rise at seven o'clock, but that is all it needed to contain. It did not need to have a limit on speeches or group the motions by linking motions that are not related to each other. If the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader had wanted to, they could have put before the House such a limited business motion, rather than the one that we face today. However, given that we are faced with this business motion, I want to make a few points about why it is inadequate given the subjects ranged before us.
	I want to expand on my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) about the linking of some of the subjects, specifically the European scrutiny Standing Orders motion about the European Scrutiny Committee having to meet in public. There is a reason why I am worried about that and want there to be adequate time. A short while ago, I presented a ten-minute Bill to the House on the transparency of European Union legislation. The Bill would have made it incumbent on Ministers to make clear to the House the origin of Bills. In that debate, the House divided, and Government Members were whipped to oppose openness and transparency in EU business—the whipping included Ministers, which is not the normal process for ten-minute Bills. That causes me concern, as we know from the way in which the Government behaved then that they do not want openness and transparency in the conduct of European Union business. It is important that the House has a full opportunity to debate the motion on European scrutiny, and to ensure that the European Scrutiny Committee meets in public, both to hear witnesses and to deliberate. That way, Members of the House—and, much more importantly, through us, members of the public—can know what is being done in their name as far as European business is concerned.
	The motion on European scrutiny has been grouped with motion No. 9, entitled "Modernisation of the House of Commons (Changes to Standing Orders)". Motion No. 9 is important in itself, because it affects the balance of time given to Front Benchers and Back Benchers in topical debates. That is why I am concerned about the time available for debate on the two motions. Back Benchers, every one of whom may wish to contribute to topical debates, have legitimate opinions about the relative time available in those debates to Front-Bench and Back-Bench speakers. My concern is that linking the two motions in a one-and-a-half-hour block means that there will not be time for one or other of those subjects to be properly debated and scrutinised, not just by Front Benchers, but by Back Benchers, who are properly concerned about the issue.

Douglas Hogg: There is a related point, is there not? If members of the public wish to express a view, one of the few ways in which they can do so is to have it articulated by their representative Member in this place. If we reduce the opportunities for Back Benchers to participate, we reduce the public's ability to communicate with other right hon. and hon. Members through their elected representative.

Mark Harper: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point. A lot of debates in this House, many of which will be affected by the motions on the Order Paper, are complex. They involve Members of Parliament being given the opportunity to relate the experiences of constituents, particularly with regard to how we ensure accountability for regional business. Our constituents will want to make sure that we have a proper ability to do that. Those issues need to be teased out in full.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is all the more important that Back Benchers get adequate time to debate the matter, given that the majority of Back Benchers on the Modernisation Committee, on which I sit, voted against regional select committees? The vote was only tied because the Deputy Leader of the House, who was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the House at the time, voted with the Government, allowing the Leader of the House to use her casting vote. If just non-payroll, Back-Bench MPs had voted, the proposition would have fallen at the Modernisation Committee stage. Does that not make it all the more important that Back Benchers get adequate time to debate the matter?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a range of good points in his brief intervention. On his first point, we have already highlighted the procedural absurdity, or unwelcomeness, of the Leader of the House using her casting vote as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee to push the proposal through against the wishes of the Committee. There is another problem; my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) highlighted the fact that a PPS served in the Committee and, indeed, enabled the Chairman to use her casting vote. Both positions are unwelcome.

John Gummer: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House have found all this incredibly amusing, and have laughed at it, not realising how serious the matter is? Is that not typical, coming from the first Leader of the House to have the party to which she belongs on the notice outside her office? She is the only person in the House who refers to herself officially by the party to which she belongs.

Mark Harper: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. When the Leader of the House was appointed to her position, a number of voices were raised in the House about the undesirability of the deputy leader of a party holding the position of Leader of the House and chairman of the party, for the reason identified by a number of Members who have contributed to the debate. The Leader of the House is of course a member of the Government and a partisan politician, but she is also responsible to all Members on both sides of the House; she has that responsibility, too. It is a challenge for her—perhaps a challenge to which she has not risen—properly to combine the role of deputy leader of the Labour party and her role in the House. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will move on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows where I am coming from. Perhaps he should stick to the terms of the motion.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and am sorry that I did not move on quickly enough to save you from rising from your seat. I will take that point, and hopefully will not test your patience again.
	Let me come back to the business motion and the time available to us. It is clear from the papers made available to the House on the Table that the motions have significant financial implications that are not at all straightforward. The Leader of the House may say that the issues are clear, but I say that they are not. The Management Board presented a paper to the House about the potential costs. I have already said that the potential cost of just the regional Select Committees and regional Grand Committees meeting a relatively limited number of times each year is £1.3 million—a charge on the taxpayer.
	A whole range of underlying assumptions about those costs are set out in the fairly complex paper. Each of those assumptions might need to be tested, but under the terms of the business motion, we are not to be given the opportunity to come close to testing those assumptions, so that we could get an idea of the costs to the taxpayer of the motions on the Order Paper. We in the House are charged with the proper expenditure of public funds; the money, of course, does not come from us, but from taxpayers generally. We will not be able to undertake that responsibility properly in the limited time available.
	In an intervention, I briefly mentioned the issue of the way in which the time is split between the groups of motions. Although the Speaker's Conference motion may not be as controversial as the others, it touches on some incredibly important issues that could affect the electoral system, the way in which the House of Commons is composed and the extent to which the House of Commons is felt to be representative. That debate has been allocated only one hour, which indicates that, in the view of the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House, it is less important than the other debates. However, the questions of whether Mr. Speaker shall have his conference set up and of the terms of reference may make the motion the most important on the Order Paper, but it may not be given proper time for debate.
	I want to mention one or two issues pertaining to the time available for the debate on regional Committees. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) drew attention to the fact that the party balance in the regions differs from the balance in the House and that the balance in each region is different. We should have proper discussion about whether it is appropriate for the regional Select Committees to reflect the balance of party opinion in the House, as opposed to in a region, and whether Members from outside a region should be on that region's Select Committee. The nature of the argument will be different for each region. Given that the proposal is to set up eight such Committees, it does not seem possible to discuss that properly and to allow Members from each region to participate—each region will be affected—in the time available.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire drew attention to the amendments on the Order Paper; there are a number of amendments on the motion on regional Select Committees, including an amendment on whether London should be included. There is a big debate to be had on that, but there is also concern about whether the mover of the amendment will even get the opportunity to be called to speak.

Peter Bone: Would it not have been more helpful if, in the programme motion, every regional Select Committee had had its own individual motion? The House might want a regional Grand Committee for certain regions but not for others. As drafted, however, it is a take-it-or-leave-it motion, and we cannot debate separately every individual Select Committee.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, because there may be differences in regional opinion. I forget which hon. Member mentioned this point, but it may have been the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) who said that, after all, members of the public in the north-east were given the opportunity to pronounce on the regional accountability of the regional development agencies, and they said very clearly that they did not want a regional assembly. If this House were given the time in the business motion to debate the Select Committees on a regional basis, it might come to different conclusions, but, sadly, the terms of the motion are so limited that we will not have the opportunity to have that debate. And we are certainly not going to have the opportunity to have it during the debate on this business motion.

Simon Hughes: I rise to add one very simple point. Eight regions are being debated, but even if there were only one speech with a five-minute limit from every main party, not including the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), by definition, that would mean 15 minutes per region, and the debate would amount to two hours without any participation by hon. Members from any of the affected regions.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, demonstrating that if Members from all regions in this House, representing all parties in this House, are to have a proper opportunity to contribute to the debate, we will need a lot longer than one and a half hours. It behoves the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House, in their capacity as guardians of the interests of the whole House, to listen to the debate so far. I have been listening very carefully, as have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and as did Mr. Speaker, and I have yet to hear from anyone, other than from the Deputy Leader of the House, any support for the business motion and the way in which the Government have chosen to arrange business. I therefore repeat the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) that the Government take this opportunity to listen to the mood of the House and amend the business motion to allow a proper opportunity to have a debate on the substance of the motion that does this House justice.

Nick Brown: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	 Question put, That the Question be now put:—
	 The House proceeded to a Division.
	Ms Dawn Butler  and Mr. Dave Watts  were appointed Tellers for the Ayes; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. Deputy Speaker  declared that the Ayes had it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to motions 3 to 7.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that the motion on which we were voting was that the Question be now put, and that we had not yet had a vote on the motion—on the business and on the timetable. I presume that you are just about to put it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I did not mean to jump further forward; I was not assisted by the absence of key personnel at that particular time.

Question put accordingly :—
	 The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 223.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on:
	(1) the Motions in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to Regional Accountability, Regional Select Committees, Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees and Regional Grand Committees, not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion;
	(2) the Motions in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to European Scrutiny (Standing Orders) and Modernisation of the House of Commons (Changes to Standing Orders) not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and
	(3) the Motion in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to the Speaker's Conference not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion;
	such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.

Regional Accountability

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the Leader of the House, I should say that Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments has been published and is available to all Members. I do not intend to read out those amendments. All questions on the motions and amendments selected for Division will be put at the end of the debate.

Harriet Harman: I beg to move motion 3,
	That this House welcomes the Third Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on Regional Accountability (HC Paper No. 282); approves the proposals for regional select and grand committees for each of the English regions set out in the response from the Government in the White Paper, Regional Accountability (Cm 7376); accordingly endorses the clear expectation that the regional select committees should meet significantly less frequently than departmental select committees; and considers that the combination of select committees providing opportunities for inquiries and reports into regional policy and administration together with opportunities for debate involving all honourable Members from the relevant region will provide a major step forward in the scrutiny of regional policy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will consider the following:
	Amendment (c) in line 3, leave out from '282)' to 'opportunities' in line 10 and insert—
	'approves the proposals for regional grand committees for each English region set out in the response from the Government contained in the White Paper, Regional Accountability (Cm. 7376); and considers that'.
	Amendment ((a) in line 6, after '(Cm 7376)', insert—
	'except that Chairmen of regional select committees shall not be paid.'.
	Motion 4— Regional Select Committees—
	That the following new Standing Order and amendment to temporary Standing Orders be made, with effect from 1st January 2009 until the end of the current Parliament—
	 A. New Standing Order
	 Regional select committees
	(1) Select committees shall be appointed to examine regional strategies and the work of regional bodies for each of the following English regions:
	(a) East Midlands
	(b) East of England
	(c) North East
	(d) North West
	(e) South East
	(f) South West
	(g) West Midlands
	(h) Yorkshire and the Humber.
	(2) Each committee appointed under this order shall consist of not more than nine members; and, unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to a committee shall continue to be members of that committee for the remainder of the Parliament.
	(3) A committee appointed under this order shall have power—
	(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn to any place within the United Kingdom, and to report from time to time;
	(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference;
	(c) to invite—
	(i) Members of the House who are not members of the committee but represent constituencies within the region in respect of which it is appointed, and
	(ii) specified elected councillors from the region in respect of which it is appointed
	to attend and participate in its proceedings at specified meetings (but not to move motions or amendments, vote or be counted in the quorum).
	 B. Amendment to Temporary Standing Order of 13th July 2005:
	 Liaison Committee (Membership)
	At end add—
	(4) In addition to the members appointed under paragraphs (2) and (3) of this order, one Member who is for the time being the Chairman of a Regional Select Committee shall be a member of the Liaison Committee.
	(5) The question on a motion in the names of the chairmen of all the Regional Select Committees to nominate a member of the Liaison Committee under paragraph (4) shall be put forthwith and may be decided after the moment of interruption.
	Amendment (a), in line 16, at end insert—
	'(i) London'.
	Amendment (b), in line 18, after 'members', insert—
	'who represent constituencies within the relevant region'.
	Amendment (c) in line 20, at end, insert—
	'(2A) In nominating Members to the Committees under this order, the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the proportion of Members of each party representing constituencies in the relevant region;
	(2B) Notwithstanding paragraph (2A), the Committee of Selection shall nominate at least one Member from each of the three largest parties to each Committee.'.
	Amendment (d) in line 31, leave out from 'appointed' to end of line 33.
	Motion 5— Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees—
	That this House expresses the opinion that the Resolution of the House of 30(th) October 2003, relating to Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2) should be amended by inserting after '(Select committees related to government departments)' the words 'or Standing Order (Regional select committees)'.
	Motion 6— Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees—
	That the Resolution of the House of 30th October 2003, relating to Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2) be amended by inserting after '(Select committees related to government departments)' the words 'or Standing Order (Regional select committees)'.
	Motion 7— Regional Grand Committees—
	That the following new Standing Orders be made, with effect from 1st January 2009 until the end of the current Parliament—
	 A. Regional grand committees
	(1) There shall be general committees, called Regional Grand Committees, for each of the following English regions:
	(a) East Midlands
	(b) East of England
	(c) North East
	(d) North West
	(e) South East
	(f) South West
	(g) West Midlands
	(h) Yorkshire and the Humber
	which in each case shall consist of those Members who represent constituencies within the region and up to five other Members nominated by the Committee of Selection, which shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by it and to appoint others in their place.
	(2) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown providing for—
	(a) a Regional Grand Committee to sit on a specified day at a specified place in the region to which it relates or at Westminster;
	(b) the time and duration of such a sitting; and
	(c) the business as provided in paragraph (4) to be conducted at it.
	(3) The question on a motion under paragraph (2) shall be put forthwith and may be decided after the moment of interruption.
	(4) The business of the committees may include—
	(a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order (Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer));
	(b) statements by a Minister of the Crown, in accordance with paragraph (5) below;
	(c) general debates on specified matters.
	(5) The chairman may permit a Minister of the Crown, whether or not a Member of the House, to make a statement and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee; but no question shall be taken after the expiry of a period of 45 minutes from the commencement of such a statement.
	35 (6) If the House has resolved that the business at a sitting of a committee shall be concluded at a certain hour and it has not otherwise been concluded before that time the chairman shall, at that time, adjourn the committee without question put and any business then under consideration shall lapse.
	 B. Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer)
	(1) Notices of questions for oral answer in a Regional Grand Committee by the relevant regional minister, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (2) of Standing Order (Regional grand committees), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
	(2) Notices of questions given under this order shall bear an indication that they are for oral answer in a specific Regional Grand Committee.
	(3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified for the taking of questions.
	(4) On any day so specified, questions shall be taken at the time provided for in an order under paragraph (2) of Standing Order (Regional Grand Committees); no 50 question shall be taken later than three quarters of an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with the official report of the committee's debates for that day.
	(5) Notices of questions under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which an answer is desired save where otherwise provided by a memorandum under paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments), provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
	Amendment ((a), in line 1, after 'made', insert
	'and Standing Order No. 117 (Regional Affairs Committee) be suspended'.
	Amendment ((b), in line 13 at end insert—
	'(i) London'.
	Amendment (c), in line 15 leave out from 'region' to end of line 18.

Harriet Harman: Today, I bring to the House the Government's proposals on regional accountability, to put in place an effective and visible improvement in the scrutiny and democratic accountability of the public agencies and public policies that operate in the English regions. The reality is that in every region in England there are important public agencies, with budgets of billions of pounds. The decisions that they make, and how they put those decisions into practice, shape the future of the regions and profoundly affect those who live and work in them.
	At regional level, those agencies are much bigger than—and are beyond the accountability of—any local authority in the region. The regional development agencies, the strategic health authorities, the Learning and Skills Council and the Highways Agency are big regional beasts. Their regional directors and chief executives are regional "masters of the universe", with huge budgets. However, they are public bodies spending public money in the public interest, and it is right that they should be publicly accountable through this House to the region that they serve. Both in Parliament and within Government it has been recognised that there is the problem of an "accountability gap" in the regions; now we are seeking to do something about it.

John Redwood: What part of "no" does the Leader of the House not understand following the referendum result in the north-east on elected regional government? Does she not understand that the people of England do not want to be balkanised and regionalised at their own expense?

Harriet Harman: We are not proposing to the House what was proposed in the north-east.

John Redwood: rose—

Harriet Harman: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I can get on and explain what our proposals are.

David Heath: The right hon. and learned Lady is talking about accountability to the regions. She knows how unhappy many of us in the south-west are about the composition of the south-west regional Select Committee. Will she give me a guarantee that no hon. Member from outside the region will sit on that Committee and that every county in the south-west will be represented on it?

Harriet Harman: On the composition of the Select Committees, about which I hope to develop an argument if I can proceed with my comments, I can say that they will be Committees of the House and their composition will reflect that of the House.

Dari Taylor: Speaking as Member of Parliament for a constituency in the north-east, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that big organisations often set priorities that my constituents neither have any involvement in nor feel that they are a part of, and they believe that through a Select Committee—through me—they have a chance of being heard?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend points to the exact problem, and now we are doing something about it.

Patrick Cormack: May I take the Leader of the House back to the central question asked by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)? Would not the membership of all these regional Committees have a Government majority, which would inevitably mean that many regions would need to have Members drafted on to them from outside those regions?

Harriet Harman: The composition of the Committees will be as for all Committees of the House, including the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee chaired by the hon. Gentleman.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Harriet Harman: I will give way a couple more times, but I would like to speak as briefly as possible in order to give hon. Members— [ Interruption . ] They said that this is a short debate, so it will not take long for them to listen to my comments and then make their own.

David Curry: If the regions are characterised by masters of the universe with multi-billion-pound budgets, why is the Leader of the House prescribing Select Committees that are recommended not to meet very often and will clearly be pale imitations of the real Select Committees of this House?

Harriet Harman: I will develop my argument about how these Select Committees will fill the current gap in accountability. The Government have made major increases in investment in the regions, including the establishment of regional development agencies, which we need to hold to account for what they do in each region of England.

Graham Stringer: My right hon. and learned Friend clearly identifies a democratic deficit, but would it not be more sensible to break up some of these regional bodies and put their resources back into local democracy, from whence they came, instead of setting up expensive, unnecessary and remote Select Committees?

Harriet Harman: There has been big investment in these regional bodies—strategic health authorities, highways agencies and learning and skills councils—but this investment is additional to the extra funds that have gone to local government.

Greg Hands: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Harriet Harman: I will press on with my comments, if I may.
	In our current economic climate, it is even more important that we ensure that taxpayers' money is being used in the most effective and efficient way possible in every region. The regional Committees that we propose plug the accountability gap and provide this House with a means to conduct effective investigations and to make clear recommendations for change, but with the flexibility to meet the differing needs of each of the regions. The motions propose that we should establish regional Select Committees to examine regional strategies and the work of regional bodies. There is no need for a list of bodies that fall within their remit. The key principle is that they should look at the development and implementation of policies where there is a regional aspect to decision making or delivery—that is, where funding or priorities are set regionally or where bodies are organised on a regional basis.

Mark Harper: Given that the right hon. and learned Lady is saying that it is important that regional accountability is preserved and that bodies operating regionally are held accountable, how can it be right that Members from outside those regions sit on, or perhaps even chair the Committees? How can that deliver effective regional accountability? It is a travesty.

Harriet Harman: I hope that hon. Members will not feel that it is a travesty when we have regional Select Committees that allow this House to hold those regional organisations to account, as well as regional Grand Committees that involve all Members from the region.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Harriet Harman: Let me press on with my explanation of our proposals.
	Concern has been expressed about the scope for overlap between the work of the regional Committees and the work of the departmental Select Committees. In order to minimise that, the motion invites the House to endorse the expectation that regional Select Committees will meet less frequently than departmental Select Committees and provides for only one of the regional Committee Chairs to serve on the Liaison Committee. We propose that each Committee should have up to nine members, nominated by the Committee of Selection in the usual way. As with all Committees of the House, their membership will reflect the composition of the House. That is the long-established practice of the House in relation to Select Committees of all kinds, including the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Affairs Committees.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Harriet Harman: I will give way once more, and then I must press on.

John Hemming: I thank the Leader of the House for giving way, which prevents me from having to make a substantive speech. In light of the Government's decision to pack the regional Select Committees with Labour Members from outside those regions, and given the problems of obtaining a quorum for many Select Committees, what guarantee can she give that those Labour Members will turn up?

Harriet Harman: I absolutely refute the idea that the Committees will be packed with Labour Members from outside the regions concerned.

Greg Hands: rose—

Richard Ottaway: rose—

Harriet Harman: Perhaps I will not give way again if it is merely an opportunity for hon. Members not to need to make their own speeches, which I am sure that the House wants to hear.

Jimmy Hood: I welcome the regional Select Committees. Given that the motion says that they will come into effect from 1 January 2009, may I invite my right hon. and learned Friend to treat as a matter of urgency the calling of the Scottish Grand Committee, which has not met for some time and needs to meet to discuss some very important issues concerning Scotland? I look forward to seeing that on the Order Paper in the new year.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will certainly consider bringing that forward.
	We propose that these new regional Select Committees should be able, if they wish, to link up with local authorities. The motion therefore gives regional Select Committees the power, if they so wish, to invite local councillors to participate in their meetings but not to move any motions or amendments, vote, or count towards the quorum.
	While the motions to establish regional Select Committees present the House with an opportunity to provide for detailed investigations into and reporting on agencies and action at regional level, we want to ensure that all Members in a region can be involved in greater regional accountability. We therefore propose that as well as the regional Select Committees, we establish regional Grand Committees to include all Members from the region. The regional Grand Committees will be a forum to consider the "state of the region" and would meet annually, or twice a year if the need arose. As with regional Select Committees, we expect that they will generally meet in the region, taking Parliament out of Westminster and into the regions.
	Regional Grand Committees will be able to hold wide-ranging debates and statements on regional issues, and provide Members in that region with an opportunity to put oral questions to regional Ministers to hold them to account for their work in fulfilling the responsibilities set out in the "Governance of Britain" Green Paper. That will meet our commitment that they should be directly accountable to Parliament in that role. The resolution we are considering today, and the Modernisation Committee—

Several hon. Members: rose —

Harriet Harman: I will give way to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field).

Mark Field: I totally disagree with the idea of any of these regional Committees, but given that the Leader of the House, like me, is a London Member, what is the rationale behind the Government's thinking that there should not be a London Committee? There will be Committees for all the other regions, and we already have Committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Harriet Harman: I take the hon. Gentleman's point that as a London Member he opposes the idea of a regional Select Committee in London. None the less, he is complaining that it is not on the Order Paper—presumably, so that he could vote against it. I will say something about London in a moment.
	The resolution that we are considering, and the Modernisation Committee inquiry, covers only the eight English regions. It does not cover Scotland, Wales or London, each of which have different governance arrangements. Scotland and Wales already have Grand and Select Committees tailored to each. London has different governance from the eight English regions, and I intend that following on from this resolution, we should turn our attention to London and get on with making arrangements for deepening the scrutiny of pan-London organisations, such as the strategic health authority. Following consultation, we will bring forward proposals to the House early in the new year.
	The proposals we are putting to the House today strengthen regional accountability to this House. They will provide every hon. Member who represents a constituency in the English regions an opportunity to participate in the scrutiny of regional policy and regional expenditure, alongside more detailed scrutiny by regional Select Committees. The resolution establishes these regional Committees only for the lifetime of this Parliament, at the end of which there will be the opportunity to review them and see how they have worked. I commend them to the House.

Theresa May: I beg to move amendment (c) to motion 3, in line 3, leave out from '282)' to 'opportunities' in line 10 and insert—
	'approves the proposals for regional grand committees for each English region set out in the response from the Government contained in the White Paper, Regional Accountability (Cm. 7376); and considers that'.
	I will speak to the motion and the amendments, including the one standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara). I am conscious of the desire of many Members to make their voices heard in this debate, so I will aim to restrict my remarks. I will not address the issue of whether the regions in question are the right ones, or whether some of the regional bodies that the Select Committees are due to hold to account should exist in their current form—a matter about which I have severe doubts. I also will not address the fact that the hole in regional accountability that the Government seem to think needs fixing is there only because of the way in which they have consistently set up new regional bodies to take responsibilities from this House and local authorities.
	I will address whether the way forward is through regional Select Committees. Before I do that, it is important to set the matter in context. We need to remember that regional Select Committees were first proposed in a statement made to the House in July 2007 by the Prime Minister. That statement was accompanied by a Green Paper, "The Governance of Britain", from the Ministry of Justice. It proposed regional Select Committees as a means of achieving formal and consistent parliamentary scrutiny, not only of regional policy but of regional Ministers—new posts created by this Prime Minister. I shall not go into great detail on that issue. Suffice it to say, I believe that regional Ministers should be held to account for what they do, through oral questions regularly either in this House or in Westminster Hall, not through oral questions to regional Grand Committees that take place only twice a year, as proposed by the Government. We need to be able to hold those Ministers to account in a better way.
	As was referred to in the previous debate, the issue was discussed at considerable length in the Modernisation Committee, and as a member of that Committee, I sat through evidence from regional bodies, the House authorities and Chairmen of existing Select Committees. It was absolutely clear that no case was made for regional Select Committees as the answer to the problem of the need for increased regional accountability. There was no consensus on the move to regional Select Committees, and the Modernisation Committee, in its report, raised severe doubts about the impact of regional Select Committees. It referred to
	"practical challenges in their creation, including: the risk of disrupting existing departmental select committee business; the potential to distract public bodies and agencies working in the regions from their core activities and central lines of accountability; the possibility of duplicating scrutiny work already being undertaken in the regions; the additional burden on Members' time and workload; increased demands on House resources".
	Given the reservations of the Modernisation Committee, it is all the more important that the House knows that this proposal, which originated from a policy proposal of the Prime Minister and the Government, was pushed through the Committee on the Chairman's casting vote—the Chairman being, of course, the Leader of the House. There was no consensus for change. You may call me old-fashioned, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I happen to think, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) said during the earlier debate, that when we are changing the structure of the House, Select Committees or other matters relating to the House, the Leader of the House should aim for consensus among the parties, so that there is general acceptance of the proposals in this House.

John Gummer: Did my right hon. Friend notice that, far from aiming at consensus, the Leader of the House ignored the fact that the majority of Back Benchers—those not paid on the Committee—voted against the proposition? She got it through not only by her own vote, but by the vote of her Parliamentary Private Secretary, who is now her assistant.

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I would add that the Government, in order to get the vote through, had to change the membership of the Select Committee the night before the vote to ensure that one Labour Member, who presumably was unable to attend, was taken off the Committee, and that a Member who was able to attend was put on to it. That Member was not present for any of the evidence sessions taken by the Committee, but voted on those proposals.

John Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend understand that the Labour Government seem to have this awful fear of England? They devolved power to Wales and to Scotland, but they will not devolve any power to England. Instead, they want to break it up.

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend's point leads neatly into my next comment, which is that the unwritten intention behind the Prime Minister's proposal was to find a solution to the West Lothian question. The message we should send clearly to the Leader of the House is that whatever else the expensive new structure will do, it will not answer the West Lothian question.

James Plaskitt: The right hon. Lady said that no case had been made. I put this view to her:
	"the proposals for regional select committees is critical for full accountability and...a step change in service delivery."
	That view comes from the West Midlands Business Council. Why does she disagree with the top 23 business organisations in the west midlands?

Theresa May: If the hon. Gentleman would like to wait a while, I shall come on to why I think that Select Committees are not the answer.
	What will these regional Select Committees actually do? Are they to scrutinise Government regional policy, such as what the Government are telling the regional development agencies to do? If so, that role is already being carried out by existing Select Committees. Regional development agencies are accountable to the Select Committee on Business and Enterprise, which is ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff). Moreover, the Select Committees hold a significant number of their meetings in the regions. If the regional Committees are not to scrutinise Government policy, which is already scrutinised by existing Select Committees, what will they do? Will they allow hon. Members to question decisions taken by regional bodies in their area? A better way of doing that would be in regional Grand Committees, where all Members can be present to discuss the issue, and not in a Select Committee, where a limited number of Members—not all of whom will be from that region—will be present.

Andrew George: Did the Modernisation Committee have the opportunity to reflect on the original role, under a previous Standing Order, of the Regional Affairs Committee, which was presumably established to provide the level of scrutiny that the Government said that they required at that stage? It has not sat since 2004—on the day of the north-east referendum, in fact. Is that not a test of the Government's sincerity in their wish for regional scrutiny?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point. One could argue that the Government's proposal is more about creating positions and chairmanships for Labour Back Benchers than proper regional scrutiny.

David Curry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real reproach to regional Select Committees is that they are, to use a Yorkshire expression, neither nowt nor summat? They are not fully fledged Select Committees, but a sort of imitation of them. They must co-opt councillors by an unspecified method—God knows how we would choose them. They are enjoined specifically to meet only now and again. Is that not bizarre? Should the Government not make up their mind about whether committees are a good or bad idea, and then we could make a decision about something real?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point and highlights one of the problems at the heart of the Government's proposals.
	The evidence that we took in the Modernisation Committee cast genuine doubt on the value of regional Select Committees and their ability to do the job that the Government claim that they can do. In his evidence, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, as Chairman of the Business and Enterprise Committee, said:
	"It is very important we plug the gap in a way that does not actually undermine the role of mainstream departmental select committees. Their policy oversight role must not be compromised by new committees, whatever form they take".
	My fear is that their policy oversight role will be compromised. When the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), was Chairman of the Liaison Committee, he added to that point by saying that,
	"what we are worried about is the problem of overlap, conflict for resources and priority of access to witnesses".
	Experienced Members expressed serious doubts about the ability of regional Select Committees to operate in a way that would not damage work that the House is already doing. The Government and the Leader of the House should heed the warnings of those with experience in such matters.

Peter Soulsby: The right hon. Lady refers to some of the evidence that the Select Committee heard, but does she recall the considerable volume of evidence that called for the establishment of regional Select Committees, not least from the regional development agencies? They felt that they were not being held adequately to account and that regional Committees were needed for their good governance as much as for our scrutiny of their work.

Theresa May: Evidence from the regional development agencies was not universally in one direction about the sort of body that should be established. They identified a problem of regional accountability, but not all said that regional Committees were the answer. The hon. Gentleman, who sat on the Modernisation Committee and heard the evidence, may cite the regional development agencies, but Members with experience of the operation of Select Committees cast genuine doubt on the ability of regional Select Committees, albeit meeting only a few times a year, to conduct their business in a way that did the job that the Government claim they could do.

Julia Goldsworthy: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Theresa May: I should like to make a little more progress because I am conscious of the time, and I do not want to sit down before I have made a point about the strain that regional Select Committees will put on the House. That is important. There is already difficulty in finding people to fill existing Committee posts, yet we propose the creation of 72 new posts. Problems with filling vacancies will not be helped by the proposal. Indeed, there is a danger that the Committees could find themselves in the farcical position of not having enough members or being inquorate, and that would have an impact on witnesses and perceptions of the House.
	We also need to consider the House's resources. The Management Board has made it clear that there would need to be new staff. Existing Clerks could take up some of the work load, but many new staff would need to be recruited, hired, trained and so on.
	That brings me to cost. We are told that the annual running costs of the Committees could amount to just over £1 million. I suspect that it would be considerably higher. Together with the outlay on regional Grand Committees, which the Government also propose, the bill will fast approach £1.5 million if not £2 million a year. That money could be rather better spent.
	To plug the regional accountability gap, we need go no further than setting up regional Grand Committees, which would give every Member in a region the opportunity to make their views known about what was being done by bodies in their region. Every part of a region would be represented, and we would avoid the position that could arise with the regional Select Committees, whereby people from outside the region may be included to maintain the Government's majority. The Grand Committees would not need to meet so often, and their running costs would be significantly lower than those of the regional Select Committees.
	Let me consider the amendments that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) tabled. Select Committees should comprise Members, not members of local authorities co-opted on to them. If the hon. Gentleman pressed that, I would support him. I also support amendment (a) about Chairmen's pay. It is proposed to pay them in the same way as the Chairmen of other Select Committees, which would meet much more frequently and have a far greater work load. The House should reject that.

David Curry: Is it not slightly curious that Members of the European Parliament, who have, by definition, a regional mandate and deal with many issues that are relevant to the regions, are not among those who could be co-opted on to a regional Select Committee?

Theresa May: As a former Member of that august body, my right hon. Friend has much experience of the input of Members of the European Parliament in the regions.
	Regional Select Committees would duplicate the work of existing Committees and risk disrupting the work of departmental Select Committees. They would duplicate the scrutiny work that already takes place in the regions, significantly increase the demands on House resources and place a greater burden on Members' time, taking more Members away from the Chamber. They are not the collective wish of the Modernisation Committee. The Government are introducing them for their own ends, not in the House's interest, and the House should reject them.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has placed a five-minute limit on Back Benchers' speeches, which operates from now.

James Plaskitt: I greatly welcome the proposal to introduce regional Select Committees for two simple reasons: they will plug a clear gap in accountability and oversight, and they will help Members of Parliament in the regions to serve our constituents more effectively.
	Many issues come to us as regional Members of Parliament that we cannot easily tackle at a regional level. If issues that are unique to our constituencies arise, that is fine—we have easy access to the public authorities that deal with them. If national issues arise in our constituencies, we can raise them here. However, many issues are regional, and we do not have the means through Parliament, or our role as Members of Parliament, to hold regional organisations to account.
	Members of Parliament are not the only ones to want access to regional organisations; many regional organisations want the opportunity to meet regional Members of Parliament and would welcome the introduction of regional Select Committees. They cannot bring together Members of Parliament from the regions, but a forum such as that the one the proposal envisages would provide an opportunity to do that.
	Cross-departmental co-ordination is essential. The Government are therefore right to appoint regional Ministers, but, to complete the circle of accountability, those Ministers should also appear before regional Select Committees.
	A considerable gap exists. The regional authorities in the west midlands spend tens of billions of pounds. Parliament could spend a small amount of money to help secure proper accountability for a vast amount of public spending. The structure of who does what in the regions can be difficult for Members of Parliament to navigate. Parliamentary oversight might help achieve greater co-ordination between the different organisations that work in the regions, and even some rationalisation.

Mark Harper: If the organisations in a region are keen to be scrutinised in the way in which the proposal suggests, perhaps we should consider whether asking poachers what sort of gamekeeper they would like to monitor them is a good idea. If regional organisations are so keen on regional Select Committees, its is perhaps because they do not believe that those committees will scrutinise them and hold them to account effectively.

James Plaskitt: The hon. Gentleman underestimates the ability of parliamentary Select Committees to get to grips with an issue. Experience shows that they are adept at getting to the heart of issues, and he should not underestimate their abilities.
	If we take the main players in the west midlands as a case in point, we will see the scale of the gap that this proposal seeks to plug. Advantage West Midlands has a £300 million pound budget, and is running 2,500 projects. It recently launched the west midlands economic strategy, which will run until 2011 and is designed to plug a £10 billion output gap in the region. Why should not the region's MPs be involved in the oversight and delivery of that strategy, which is critically important to our constituents? It involves skills, enterprise, innovation, transport and economic inclusion issues, which are not easy to grasp in a group, other than through the creation of these Committees.
	There are six sub-regional regeneration zones, with 19 different organisations involved. We need a regional Select Committee to give us, the region's MPs, the chance to get to grips with that array of bodies. The Government office for the west midlands joins 10 different Departments in the region and grapples with major issues of planning and transport, and the region's MPs need better oversight of it. The learning and skills council for the west midlands has a large budget and a strategy involving employers, young people, adults, colleges and providers. The council also addresses 12 sector skills areas that are also of critical importance to the businesses in the region and another reason why we need the ability to scrutinise it. Incidentally, the learning and skills council has six local offices, each with an economic development team.
	All other aspects of regional structure are in place. Local government has its regional assembly. The MEPs, as has been mentioned, have a regional role defined by their constituencies. The Departments have the Government office for the west midlands, and Ministers have an oversight within the region. Parliament is the missing bit of the jigsaw, but it should be holding all the others to account. That is what we must put right, in the interests of ensuring proper parliamentary accountability of the Executive in all their manifestations. We must do that in the interests of better helping us to represent our constituents and, in the interests of making our region and all those working in it, operate for the benefit of the people whom we represent in this Parliament.

Simon Hughes: This is an important debate, which is why it is a disgrace that we have only an hour and a half for it. Many Members will not have the say that they want to have, and should have. I ask the House to accept amendments (b) and (c) to motion 4, and amendment (c) to motion 7, tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
	The Government are in their present difficulties because they have never properly grasped the need to address devolution in England. They honourably and rightly—if eventually and under pressure—realised that devolution was necessary for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I note that devolution to those places gave them proportional representation for their Parliaments and Assemblies, so that they are representative of the people whom they represent. London also has a degree of devolution, introduced by this Government, that is representative of the people of London and provides an element of accountability. But this Government have never understood the need for devolution in England. Until they understand that, they will not command the necessary support in this House for their proposals.
	There are different views about how to achieve that devolution for England. Some of my colleagues would prefer a form of regional government, but that was tried—and clearly did not succeed—in the north-east. Some of us believe in an English Parliament, but that suggestion requires constitutional deliberation on how to complete devolution across the United Kingdom. In the absence of such structures, it is right to have a way of holding to account regional bodies, including the quangos and strategic bodies that are not held to account at present. The Government have further failed to grasp the central obligation that follows from that—that those bodies should be held to account by representatives from each region who are chosen by the people of that region.
	My party would argue that those representatives should reflect the votes in those regions, but in three regions the Government came second or third in share of the vote at the last general election. Even if we do not win that argument, the Government should at least propose Select Committees that reflect the balance of political representation in each region, which differ hugely from each other. The Committees should also reflect the differences between the regions, but the Leader of the House—as she confirmed earlier in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—has failed to accept that.
	We propose that the same principle should apply that—it could be argued—currently applies to the Scottish and Welsh Committees. Scotland and Wales have a majority of Labour Members, and so do the Committees. Northern Ireland has never had the benefit of a fair system: there are nine MPs from the Democratic Unionist party and nine others, but that balance is not reflected on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
	It is now proposed that the Government should have a majority on the regional Committee for every one of the eight regions of England. At the last general election, the Government did not win the largest share of the vote in the east, south-east or south-west of England. Indeed, they came third in the south-east and the south-west—regions with millions of people. The Government are trying to impose their majority in all of England, when they do not have a majority in every region. Worse, they are trying to fiddle the system so that they can bus in colleagues from other regions to make up their majority. They are insisting that the Grand Committees, made up of all the Members from every party, should have up to five other nominated members. Not content with corrupting the balance on the Select Committees, the Government also want to pervert the balance of the Grand Committees. The Leader of the House must understand that that is causing the greatest offence and suggests great disrespect to the people in many of the regions, some of whom already think that their region is an artificial creation or difficult to accept. They are being told that not only do they have to accept those artificially created regions, but that they will have imposed on them a Government majority, no matter how they have voted in the past.

John Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Leader of the House is wrong to make a direct comparison with other Select Committees? They are subject-based and therefore properly represent the whole of the House of Commons. The new Committees would be regionally based and, therefore, should represent those who have an interest in that region.

Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is right. That is why we have also argued that the Chairmen of the new Committees should not be paid the same as the Chairmen of a UK-wide subject-based Committee. Eight new Committees are proposed, so we suggested that the Chairmen should be paid an eighth of what the other Chairmen are paid. If that is not accepted, we share the view of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that, at least to start with, those posts should not be remunerated. Otherwise, we will just be accused of creating more jobs at public expense.
	May I make a point to endorse what was said by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May)? We have 41 Select Committees. If we agree to this proposal, there will be 49. There will then be a Speaker's Conference, with the same powers as a Select Committee, which makes 50. There will be 72 more members of Select Committees as a result of such a decision being taken today, and more as a result of there being a Speaker's Conference, which we are to appoint later.
	At the moment, 159 colleagues serve on more than one Select Committee, eight serve on as many as four and I have to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you are not aware of it, that many Committees struggle to achieve an adequate attendance. It does the credibility of the House no good to have a small and sometimes inquorate number of colleagues on Committees sitting to take evidence from whomever we call. That is not good for our reputation and it is why we ask the Leader of the House, before adding another range of Select Committees to our armoury, to defer all these debates until we can review the workings of Select Committees generally.

Julia Goldsworthy: I remind my hon. Friend that we are looking at establishing regional Select Committees to replace the regional assemblies, which many people in my constituency considered far too remote, indirectly elected and unaccountable to the needs of their local area. Does he share my consternation in relation to how a regional Select Committee, which might contain Members who do not even represent part of the region concerned and which will have no direct democratic accountability, might be considered preferable by any of my constituents? I sincerely doubt that they will consider it satisfactory.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend and my hon. Friends from the south-west have the strongest reasons for objecting to the way this is going to work out. The south-west stretches from Tewkesbury in the north and Swindon in the east down to the Isles of Scilly. At the last election, Labour won 13 seats, we won 16 and Conservatives won 22, so Labour has the least number of seats, but it is now being proposed that, instead of the regional assembly, Labour colleagues will dominate a Committee representing an area of that size. By definition, that means that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members cannot be chosen to represent Somerset, Cornwall, Devon, Gloucestershire and the other areas—it cannot happen. The people of those regions and the organisations of those counties will look to a Select Committee to look after their interests, but that cannot be done because, as anyone in the House knows, the interests of Cornwall might be different from those of Gloucestershire.
	Friends often make the point to me, which I think is correct, that the population of that region is bigger than that of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I believe that the area is bigger geographically than two of those three countries, and the distance—I am often reminded—from Scilly to Bristol is greater than that from Bristol to Scotland. I hope that I am indicating that a common, one-size-fits-all answer is entirely inappropriate.
	I want to make three last points.

Peter Soulsby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: No, I am conscious of the time. I respect the hon. Gentleman's interest, but will he please bear with me?
	The regions are hugely different too. The north-east, which has 30 MPs, has fewer than half as many as the south-east, yet we are saying that the Committee must have the same structure, the same number of MPs involved and, yes, the same blessed Labour majority.

Peter Soulsby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: All right, go on.

Peter Soulsby: I thank my fellow member of the Modernisation Committee for giving way. Does he not accept that the strength and credibility of Select Committees are enormously enhanced by the fact that when they are critical of the Government, as they often are, either directly or indirectly, that happens despite them having a Government majority?  [ Interruption. ] I am making a serious point. Does he not accept that if they are seen as being merely partisan, which they will be if they have majorities of the sort that he suggests, they will easily be dismissed by the Government in a most unfortunate way?

Simon Hughes: I have heard disingenuous arguments, but that is about the most disingenuous I have ever heard. No, I do not accept that for a moment. The worst thing is that, having set up this structure, which we support in principle, we will end up losing all credibility, because it will distort political representation. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what makes things worse. He will have read the reports; I have one here, written by Patrick Wintour in  The Guardian of Tuesday this week. The headline is, "Chief whip plans to punish rebellious Labour backbenchers", and the report states:
	"The government was under fire last night after it emerged that the new chief whip, Nick Brown, is proposing that any Labour MP voting against the government in the past year will not be recommended to sit on all-party parliamentary select committees."
	There are different views around the House as to whether that is a bribe or a punishment, but the point is that Select Committees should have the independence of mind to have on them the people who will form a view in the interests of those whom they represent. The Government are abusing that, first, by ensuring that there is a Government majority and, secondly, by then saying that they will put on the Select Committees, if they can find them, only people who will support the Government.
	This is a very sad day: when we could have been working out together—in good time and with consensus—a way forward to achieve proper regional accountability, we have, in the end, the Government using the steamroller of their majority and the payroll vote.
	I have a final postscript. I share the Leader of the House's view that it is not appropriate to deal with London today, although that is the only issue on which we share common ground. London has some devolved government and the London assembly. It is therefore appropriate that London should be dealt with on a different occasion and in a different way.

Andrew Pelling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: No.
	As for the rest, I hope that colleagues will vote for many of the amendments on the Order Paper. At least then we can rescue the Government from their mistakes. Otherwise, we will be completely abusing the opportunity that we have to provide decent regional accountability.

Andrew MacKinlay: I have tabled three amendments. The first draws attention to the fact that there is an injunction, as it were, that the Committees should not meet very often. That is absurd. If I were serving on such a Committee, I would not be constrained by that request—or, rather, hope—but would want to stretch the envelope to the maximum to ensure that the Committee was at least of some value. The proposal is nonsense and shows that the idea has not been fully thought through. I will not divide the House on that amendment, but I mention it to highlight my other amendments. If I am right in my judgment that the envelope will not be stretched, why should we pay the Chairmen of those Committees the same as we pay the Chairmen of departmental Select Committees? The idea is simply bonkers.
	In addition, there is the high payroll vote, which has already been referred to—I discovered in 2005 that 144 hon. Members were not on the basic MP's pay, and the figure must be a lot higher now. I urge hon. Members to reflect on that, because it is very unhealthy to say the least. There is also the paradox of the Deputy Leader of the House, who is not paid a bean for his ministerial role, advocating that Chairmen should be paid. Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his salary for his friends. The growth of the payroll vote and the patronage that goes with it is very unhealthy.
	I hope to divide the House on my amendment dealing with that issue, because, even if I am wrong in my judgment that those Chairmen should not be paid at all, if the House accepts my amendment, there can be a period of reflection. Perhaps they should be paid a per diem, but not on the same rate as the Chairs of the departmental Committees. I hope that I will take the House with me on that.
	My second concern of substance is the provision in the proposed Standing Order that would allow a regional Committee to invite
	"specified elected councillors from the region in respect of which it is appointed...to attend and participate".
	Have we no pride? I fought hard to get elected to this place. It was five general elections before I got elected. I am proud to be a Member of Parliament and my duties as a Member of Parliament are indivisible. Councillors' jobs are very important, but we should not blur the issues by bringing the two together. I urge hon. Members to stand up for Parliament and be jealous of their rights and privileges.

Mark Harper: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew MacKinlay: No.
	Privileges are important, because what happens under parliamentary privilege? I can be admonished by the House if I abuse parliamentary privilege. We are self-regulating. How can you deal with someone who is not a Member of this House, but who abuses parliamentary privilege, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Will we have a separate register of interests for these people? The idea has not been thought through, which is why I hope that we will reject it, if for no other reason than that.
	When I was a young councillor, I would have been proud to serve on a parliamentary Committee—I would have given my right hand to do so—but I was very partisan and saw it as my mission to get elected to this place. We can imagine the councillors coming in, taking on the Minister here and the official there, but that will diminish what I hope we try to do, which is to leave our party allegiances at the Committee Room door. I do not know whether there are any Scottish or Welsh Members in the Chamber, but if having elected councillors is good for me in Essex, I shall similarly be proposing that some people from Scottish local authorities and assemblies should serve on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, too. What is being proposed really is mad, so I ask hon. Members to join me in the Lobby against those two proposals.
	My final point is about Members of Parliament who are not from the region concerned serving on, say, the south-west regional Committee. I have asked myself, "Could I possibly do this?" In my judgment, I would have to be stark staring bonkers to go and serve on a Committee covering a region of which my constituency formed no part. Surely we are all busy. I must say that those who sign up will do so with full knowledge and consent, and will be subject to criticism by their electors. Their electors will ask: "What the devil are you doing focusing on that region and not ours?"
	Earlier, one of the Whips muttered to me, "What about Ireland?" That is a different situation, because the question of Northern Ireland is demonstrably, because of its history, a United Kingdom matter. However, when people go from one region to another, they will be subject to criticism. They must remember that they have to agree under Standing Orders to serve on a Committee, so they cannot blame the Whips or hide behind them, or excuse themselves. They will have signed up, so they can be subject to criticism.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the result of the Division deferred from a previous day.
	On the question relating to dangerous drugs, the Ayes were 430, the Noes were 54, so the Ayes have it.
	 [The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

Regional Accountability

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

George Young: I rise to speak to amendment (a) to motion 7. I note that because of the guillotine motion, there are only 30 minutes for all Back Benchers to speak in this debate.
	The amendment would abolish the Regional Affairs Committee. Colleagues could be excused for not knowing that there was one. Standing Orders require one to be established, but the Government have not done so in this Parliament. Week after week at meetings of the Committee of Selection, we wait for the Government to propose members of the Committee, yet nothing happens. The Government clearly must feel that the Committee serves no useful purpose, so I hope that they will accept the amendment.
	The Regional Affairs Committee, to remind colleagues, was applauded when it was introduced. In 2000, the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), said:
	"We believe that such a forum will add usefully to the procedures of the House".—[ Official Report, 11 April 2000; Vol. 367, c. 295.]
	The Committee has been so useful that it has not met since April 2003, which indicates that it is a wholly dispensable part of our constitution. The amendment would simply put it out of its misery.
	That is relevant to today's debate, because it shows that the Government have form in coming up with the wrong answer to the regional question. We told the Government eight years ago that it would not work. In a powerful speech, the then shadow Leader of the House—me—said that the Government had come up with the wrong answer. That debate ended in the small hours of the morning of 12 April, which shows how long ago it was. We lost by 60 votes, which was a good result at the time. That proposal came from straight from the Government; it was not even laundered through the Modernisation Committee, as the proposals that we are debating have been.
	That brings me to my second point. When the Prime Minister announced the new Committees in the "Governance of Britain" Green Paper, he said:
	"Consideration of changes to the way the House of Commons operates is ultimately a matter for the House itself".
	However, if we turn to page 42 of the Modernisation Committee report, what do we find? It states:
	"Draft Report (Regional Accountability), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read."
	Who is the Chairman? The Leader of the House is the Chairman. We can see on page 52 that the Committee tied, and that the Chairman declared herself for the Ayes. That does not strike me as leaving the matter to the House to decide. Rather, it strikes me as the Government obliging the House to accept something that it does not want.
	We then have the ultimate of absurdities, the Government response, which begins:
	"The Government welcomes the report from the Modernisation Committee on Regional Accountability".
	Who presented this report to Parliament? It was none other than the Leader of the House—it is straight out of Gilbert and Sullivan. Frankly, it is an abuse of the Select Committee procedure. Every other Select Committee is chaired by a Back Bencher and contains no Ministers, because Select Committees are instruments of the House to hold the Government to account. The Modernisation Committee is an instrument that the Government are using. That could weaken our ability to hold them to account because of the impact on existing Select Committees, which brings me to my third and final point.
	A little-read document, "Sessional Returns", shows how the existing pressure on the time of colleagues affects their attendance on Select Committees. The average attendance for the most prestigious Committee—the Public Accounts Committee—for the last year for which figures exist, was 47.2 per cent. So, for most of the meetings, most of the members were not there. I say that not in a spirit of criticism of colleagues, but as a statement of fact. There is a lot of pressure on our time because the Government have packed everything into two days of the week. The Regulatory Reform Committee manages 42.3 per cent. attendance, and five of the 14 members attended no meetings at all in the last Session for which there are records. The figures for the Environmental Audit Committee are 44.5 per cent. and for the Trade and Industry Committee 50.2 per cent. For the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committees—those most like the new regional Select Committees—the figures are 56 per cent. and 52 per cent. Where, then, are the folk sitting on these new Select Committees coming from; and if they turn up, what will happen to the existing ones?
	I, too, read in  The Guardian that the Government Chief Whip is going punish those who vote against the Government by refusing to put them on Select Committees. He has got it exactly wrong: the punishment is being put on a regional Select Committee, and for voting against the Government twice, it is being put on a regional Select Committee for a region other than the one the Member represents! Many other arguments cut across existing Select Committees, and regional Ministers do not have responsibility for the all the budgets or all the issues. The propositions before us are a nonsense, and I hope the House throws them out at 4.18.

Neil Turner: The Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) made a very good case for having regional Select Committees on the grounds that they will scrutinise the work of Government regional bodies. The case was well made, but there is another important issue that is too easily forgotten. The agenda of bringing our regions closer together—for example, making it possible for the north-west and the west midlands to have the same "gross value added" as London and the south-east—is very important. To make that regional agenda happen means more than looking into regional bodies, quangos and other Government agencies, as it is also about looking into business, the voluntary sector and the whole community in the regions concerned. I believe that regional Select Committees have an important job to do in bringing all those elements together, ensuring that we have a coherent and cohesive tale to tell. That would help to bring the GVA of our region, currently below the national average, up to it.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) spoke about the £2 million cost. It is easy to look at the costs, but what about the benefits? With an increase of merely 0.1 per cent. in the GVA of the north-west, that £2 million would pale into insignificance. As we scrutinise these various bodies, we need to ensure that they become better and take better decisions. The likelihood is that, as a result of better scrutiny, the regional development agencies, the learning and skills councils and other local bodies that my colleagues have mentioned will actually perform better.

Gordon Prentice: Speaking as a Member who is unlikely to be put on a regional Select Committee, may I ask my friend whether a better job of work might not be done through a regional Grand Committee, which was advocated by the shadow Leader of the House?

Neil Turner: No, I do not think it would. It would be too large and unwieldy, unable to do the job properly.
	We are sometimes seen as being out of touch, which makes it important that regional Select Committees meet in their respective regions. It is essential that we take Parliament out of here and to the people; let us have meetings there, so that people can properly see the work we do and value it that much more.
	Another positive factor is that these regional Select Committees are non-departmental. We all know that health problems, economic problems, transport and skills problems impact on each other. It is important to avoid the silos of Departments, which can detract from our ability to look across at the issues and come up with the solutions. The regional Select Committees, in being non-departmental, will have that ability to look across the region and provide solutions that involve all the people of the region—the quangos, the outside bodies, businesses, the trade unions and so forth. That is an important innovation, and once we have some experience of these regional Select Committees up and running, we can think about extending the concept further. We could look more into scrutinising issues rather than Departments.
	Finally, let me say that the regional Select Committees must be proactive. We should not just consider what has been done and the decisions that have been made. The regional agenda is so important that the Committees will need to be involved with the issues at the heart of it. They will need to be proactive and involve people, so that we can put everything together and establish a regional agenda that includes what the region needs for the future.

Nicholas Winterton: Let me establish straight away that I intend to vote against regional Select Committees but to support regional Grand Committees, and that I think the Modernisation Committee should have supported them in its report to the House. That might, as the Leader of the House would say, have constituted only a halfway house towards what—for whatever purpose—she wishes to achieve, but I believe it would have indicated whether or not Committees of this kind were required.
	I can tell the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that I shall certainly support his amendments. They are sound: he is a House of Commons man, and he has given considerable thought to them. I also supported the speech of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), which I thought extremely balanced; and of course I supported every word—without exception—uttered by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young).
	Let me say to the Leader of the House that I only wish some Labour Members—particularly the right hon. and learned Lady herself and her deputy—would take account of some experience. Perhaps I cannot claim much experience myself, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), I have been in the House for more than 37 years, and I have served on Committees since 1975, so I do have some.
	I chaired the Select Committee on Health and suffered as a result of the actions of my own party, but I make no play of that during this debate. I have also been the founder Conservative member on the Modernisation Committee, which the Leader of the House now chairs, and for two Parliaments I chaired the Procedure Committee. I therefore hope the Leader of the House will accept that I have an understanding of the way in which the House operates and also of its procedures.
	My position is nothing to do with a party-political position. I have one objective for the remainder of my time in the House, and that is to restore to the Floor of the House and to Back Benchers greater authority over the way in which the House operates and spends its time. I am therefore deeply unhappy about what the Government have proposed.
	I have to say, using a rather unfortunate word, that I believe that these proposals are a sheer abortion. I believe that they constitute an abuse of the House. I believe that little thought has been given to the membership of the regional Select Committees and to all the problems raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock, in his excellent speech, relating to the addition of councillors to the Select Committees. And how are the Committees to be comprised, given that political parties have very few Members in particular regions?
	Let me say to the right hon. and learned Lady, who holds a number of positions, that I believe that these matters have not been thought through and clearly should have been thought through, not only by her and those who advise her but, to a greater extent, by members of the Modernisation Committee.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that in many regions, such as my own in the east of England, almost every Labour Member is already an office-holder? We shall have a whole lot shipped in from the north-east, while others from elsewhere will not be made Committee members because they are not of a suitable kind.

Nicholas Winterton: I am inclined to agree with my right hon. Friend.
	We want to appeal to the public out there. We do not want to increase disillusionment. However, I believe that what the Modernisation Committee is proposing, mainly on the basis of the casting vote of the Leader of the House, will increase disillusionment. For instance, in this debate we are being allowed a mere five minutes in which to express our opinions on fundamental changes to the House. I repeat that my whole purpose is to return to this House some independence and integrity from the Executive, so I hope that, even at this late stage, the Leader of the House will be prepared to think again on some of these proposals. They are ill-judged, they will serve the House badly and they will not restore public confidence in this place and our role as representative Members of Parliament.

Andrew Dismore: I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name, which are supported by 14 London Members in total and particularly address the London dimension. I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House discussed that in her opening remarks, and I am grateful for the constructive discussions that we have had over the past couple of days to try to resolve the position of London.
	London is the biggest region; it contains 7.2 million people and is growing. It is different from the rest of the country; it has the Mayor and the Greater London authority. There remains a major role for central Government to play; there are a large number of non-devolved areas and a large number of areas where they work in partnership with other agencies. There is an overwhelming need to ensure proper co-ordination of Government key programmes, and that can be done effectively only through parliamentary scrutiny provided by a London Select Committee. There will be no difficulty with political balance in a London Committee, because London is one of the few regions that has plenty of Members from all the parties, which will ensure that we can staff it ourselves. Our area has the Government office for London—other regions have similar bodies—which also ought to be accountable to Parliament. We have our own Minister for London, and he ought to be accountable to us, as should his two assistant Ministers.
	London is different: it accounts for 16.7 per cent. of the UK's economic output; and economic difficulties, such as those facing us now, have a particularly severe impact on the City and financial services jobs. In many ways, the downturn's impact in London is different from that in the rest of the country. We also need to address the issues associated with deprivation in London. Four of the top eight—or the bottom eight, depending on how one looks at this—most deprived authorities in England are in London. The city has serious child poverty; 50 per cent. of children in inner London are in low-income households. The benefits regime operates very differently in London, because of the high cost of living, the way in which housing benefit works and the low take-up of tax credit. The Government office for London programmes, the new deal for communities, the delivery of decent homes and neighbourhood renewal and regeneration are all issues on which we should have a say.
	The issue of health also needs to be considered. London has its own regional strategic health authority— NHS London—and the Government office for London examines inequalities in life expectancy and infant mortality. What is contained in the huge change that NHS London is introducing must be subject to detailed scrutiny. The Darzi review deals with issues of general practitioner access, the controversial polyclinics, the reconfiguration of hospital services, the potential separation of elected and acute services, and the possible controversial closures of certain general hospitals. We must also consider the joint commissioning being organised among the primary care trusts and the, unfortunately low, take-up of some of the immunisation programmes. The PCTs have local authority scrutiny panels, but we do not have a similar arrangement at the strategic, London-wide level, which a London Select Committee could provide.
	Transport for London deals with buses and the tube, but the enormous £5.5 billion Thameslink modernisation programme comes under the Department for Transport, not TFL. There is a new, enormous involvement from central Government in the Crossrail programme to consider and, of course, only yesterday we debated a third runway at Heathrow—that central Government policy decision will have a major impact on London across the board. Then there is the Olympics to consider, in which the Government have a major role to play. We have our own Minister for the Olympics, who ought to be accountable to Parliament through a Select Committee arrangement.
	The case for a Select Committee for London has been strongly made. A London Committee does not have to follow exactly the same model as the other Committees, and it is thus right that we should consider it in the context of devolution to London. Special problems face London, and I hope that the Leader of the House's consultation on this matter will be short and sharp. I hope that she will be able to come back to the House in the early new year with concrete proposals to ensure that London gets the representation and the scrutiny of the Minister, of the Government office for London and of all the other bodies that we should be able to achieve for London Members in this House.

Robert Key: I am pretty sceptical about whether the arrangements will work, and that will no doubt be reflected in the way in which I vote tonight. However, I commend the Government for recognising that we have a problem and for at least attempting to put it right.
	In the county constituency of Salisbury, we tend to take the long view. The first Members of Parliament were sent here from Salisbury in 1265, in 1346 eight Members of Parliament represented the area that I now represent and until 1832 we still had more than one MP—the democratic representation of my area has changed.
	One or two things have been imposed on the area. The first is the strange and arbitrary idea of where the south-west starts and ends. Indeed, all the regional boundaries are pretty artificial. They were a world war two attempt to divide up the country for administrative reasons, and I regret that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), when he was Deputy Prime Minister, did not decide to rearrange the regions. I, for example, feel myself to be a man of Wessex rather than of the west country. I have always regarded Bristol as being in the west midlands —[ Interruption. ] My hon. Friends laugh, but that is the whole problem. Those who represent the south-west, like me, and who know it well fully understand how remote it feels to be in Penzance while life-affecting decisions are taken in Bristol, which could be on the moon as far as most people are concerned. We have a problem.
	Having been born in Plymouth, having lived in Salisbury and Truro and having spent the larger part of my life in Salisbury, I understand that even within our regions there are huge variations in how our services from central Government are delivered, what expectations we have and what our people have to offer the nation. One thing that is absolutely clear is that we should make every possible attempt to ensure that this House remains the Parliament of England. I do not wish to see any other Parliament established anywhere calling itself an English Parliament. That would be appalling and would go against 1,000 years of our history.
	We have to try to work out a way of ensuring that there is a greater sense of identity and empowerment and better delivery of services. I recognise that, when I was a local government Minister, my noble Friend Lord Heseltine, as Secretary of State, invented the idea of regional Government offices. My right hon. Friends the Members for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who are sitting beside me, know more about that than me, because they had related responsibilities. However, there was never any intention that there would be elected regional assemblies. I regard what is happening today as a sort of revenge for the fact that the regional assemblies did not work.
	We have to be very careful that we do not cause more trouble than it is all worth. I am keen to see that we give a fair wind to some of these ideas, if only to prove that they are wrong. We must somehow recognise, as a large number of right hon. and hon. Members from all parties have suggested, that there are real problems with our identity. We cannot devolve responsibility for matters such as fire and rescue services upwards to a regional body from our local authorities without having local accountability for them, which is just one example of many.
	I am sceptical whether this proposal will work, but it is an attempt that we should not completely write off. Unless we have a better suggestion, we should perhaps be a little cautious in our approach.

Richard Burden: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key), not least because I have discovered for the first time that Bristol is part of the west midlands, something that had passed me by until now.
	I broadly welcome the proposals, for many of the reasons that my hon. Friends have given. I want to offer a word of reassurance and to raise a couple of matters of concern. The welcome that I would like to give the proposals follows on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) said. I get the impression that my constituents think that I have three roles that they want me to take up. The first is as a local advocate—a local champion in the local area. That works in some cases, not in others, but it is generally clear. The second is a national role, whether it involves raising their concerns on a national stage or participating in the national formulation of legislation, national scrutiny and so on. The element that is missing is the regional and sub-regional issues that affect my constituents, in which the local MP has an unclear role, at best. That is where there is a gap.
	In the past, that was occasionally changed by force of circumstance. For me, the gap was partly bridged a few years ago by the Rover crisis at the Longbridge plant in my constituency. A taskforce was set up that involved stakeholders in the region and local MPs, and that began to bridge some of the gaps that I have identified.
	I think that the creation of regional Ministers—and now the councils of regional Ministers, and so on—has also begun to bridge some of those gaps, although there is still a gap in accountability at regional level. That is a problem. The regional Select Committees cannot be the only remedy, but they will help to address the problem.
	It is important that we retain the Select Committee principle, because they will need the inquisitorial approach that such Committees can bring to bear. I do not think that they should be an alternative to the Grand Committees—I believe that it is quite a good idea to have both structures—but we should not lose the inquisitorial approach.
	There are some issues that I want to flag up, but first I want to reassure the House about the question of duplication between the roles of different committees. Yes, there will be duplication, but I am not scared of that. By our nature, we already duplicate all sorts of things. Overlaps exist—regionally and locally, regionally and nationally and even between Departments.
	I am a member of the International Development Committee, whose job overlaps with that of the Foreign Affairs Committee and, increasingly, with that of the Defence Committee. Issues to do with the Post Office affect the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and often the Department for Work and Pensions as well. Another example would be the way in which issues to do with climate change and energy overlap Departments. In addition, we already have the Public Accounts Committee, which by its very nature is cross cutting and overlaps the work of other Committees. Therefore, we should not be too cautious about this proposal. Will the result be messy sometimes? Yes, absolutely—but that is because politics and what we have to deal with are often messy.
	I have two areas of concern. First, I am uncomfortable—for practical reasons and for reasons of principle—with the idea that regional Select Committees should have a majority of people from another region. That is a problem, and I am not sure that it will work. If we go ahead with the experiment, I hope that it will be reviewed as soon as possible. I am uncertain that it will work, and in that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay).
	However, I disagree with my hon. Friend about the question of inclusion, which is my second concern. We should not be too precious about restricting the involvement of the regional Select Committees to MPs alone. While it may be right to restrict the membership to MPs, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) that the committees should also be outward looking and involve local authorities and other stakeholders in the regions.
	We know that people up and down the country are disengaged from politics. If we can do something about that by creating these Committees, we should seize the opportunity.

Andrew George: I am aware of the time pressures on contributions to the debate, and I hope that the Leader of the House will reflect on them and on the dilemmas faced by Back Benchers as a result. I believe that, in future, Back Benchers should be given a protected opportunity to question a Minister—or, in this case, the Leader of the House—according to a procedure similar to that used by the European Scrutiny Committee.
	We have not had that opportunity today. Like other hon. Members, I have wanted to intervene on the Leader of the House on many occasions today, only to find that she would not accept an intervention. Having voted the proposals through as Chair of the Modernisation Committee, she is clearly responsible for the policy that we are debating. I believe that we need to be able to scrutinise the matter far more than we have been able to do so far.
	I also want to query the Government's sincerity in bringing forward these proposals. As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) explained earlier, we were assured that the creation of the Regional Affairs Standing Committee would fill the gap left by devolution to Scotland, Wales and London. However, it was within the gift of Ministers to decide when that Committee would be called and what subjects would be debated, so in the end the full opportunity that the Committee offered was never properly used.
	In fact, the Government had a perfect opportunity immediately after the north-east referendum to reflect on why their plan and approach at that stage had failed so catastrophically. However, they failed to learn the lesson from that that devolution is all about letting go, not about holding on for dear life. What the Government in effect did in the north-east was say, "We've decided the boundaries of these places. We've decided what powers. We've decided the timetable. We've decided everything about this. Now do you want it or not?" Such an impatient, centralised approach—demanding from the Government-created zones of the country and expecting them to acquiesce to centralised diktats—clearly demonstrated why the Government had failed.
	These regions are not regions in the sense that they have internal integrity and a community of interest. They are Government zones set up for administrative convenience. The Government should loosen up a bit and allow the localities around the country to bring forward their own proposals for the management of all the services that are controlled from central Government. This monstrous and inept policy failure, and the fudge and distasteful abuse of power of the creation of these regional Select Committees, is the inevitable product of a Government who do not want to listen to the regions they have created.
	Many hon. Members have pointed up the clear—albeit, perhaps, entertaining—absurdity of what is likely to happen in the Government zone of the south-west. It has been well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Labour Members from outside the area will be dragooned into sitting—whether or not as willing volunteers. Perhaps the Leader of the House would like to reflect on the fact that several Labour Members from outside the Government zone have come to me and said, "We look forward to being appointed to the Government zone for the south-west Select Committee, because we have enjoyed many holidays in the area and we can go down there and reflect on our holiday experience." That highlights a problem we have to fight against constantly. We always have to punch our way through the impression that the south-west is merely a holiday zone. I hope that the Leader of the House will reflect on that.

Peter Soulsby: Even in this era of bank bail-outs, the £2.3 billion spent every year by regional development agencies is a very substantial sum. In addition to the money that they have spent in the past on economic development and regeneration, the Government are rightly giving RDAs responsibility for spatial planning, to give better co-ordination at regional level to that work. In addition to the RDAs, on which we have all focused because they are such significant spenders, work on the arts, sport, health and transport is all rightly organised on a regional basis to give an appropriate balance between the strategic overview and local insight and knowledge.
	All this work is currently nominally accountable to Parliament through Ministers, but we all know that the reality is very different, and that in fact the RDAs and the many other bodies that organise on a regional basis are not effectively accountable to Parliament, certainly not through Ministers via the sort of questions we are able to ask here, and in many cases the work they do alongside each other is not properly joined up.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Soulsby: No, I am sorry but I do not have time to give way. I must press on.
	The Modernisation Committee had five evidence sessions. In all those sessions, we heard overwhelming evidence about the accountability gap to which the Government are responding in their proposals. Nobody doubted that. It was probably the regional development agencies and other regional bodies that said most strongly that they felt that they were not held to account adequately. They felt that it would be good for their governance if they were better held to account.
	I welcome the Government's proposals, particularly on regional Select Committees. Given the evidence that we heard, and the arguments that we engaged in with witnesses, I am firmly convinced—I say this without any arm-twisting from the Whips or persuasion from the Leader of the House—that regional Select Committees are the only effective mechanism by which we can hold a focused inquiry on the work of the many regional agencies, and hold them properly to account. Those Select Committees will be able to set their own agenda, establish their own inquiries, work flexibly and, of course, publish reports. Those reports will be the subject of debate in the regional Grand Committees, on the Floor of the House, or in Westminster Hall.

David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Peter Soulsby: I would like to, but I have a few more points to make. I will make them, and then see whether I can give way. The Government have wisely brought forward proposals for both regional Select Committees, which I favour, and regional Grand Committees. The Grand Committees may prove a more effective way of holding regional Ministers to account, but both types of Committee may have ongoing value. I suspect that it will be the regional Select Committees that turn out to have enduring value, to be of more interest to Members, and to be more effective in holding regional bodies to account. However, it may be that both types of Committee prove to be long-term solutions.
	I have listened to the debate carefully, and many of the protests that we have heard are way out of proportion to the nature of the proposals before us. What is being put before us is an experiment that is to take place up until the next election, which is less than 18 months away. The experiment is quite modest in its costs, which are well under £2 million—the figure is £1 million or £2 million. That is barely a tenth of 1 per cent. of the expenditure of regional development agencies alone, never mind all the other regional bodies. That seems a small price to pay in the search for effective regional accountability.

Patrick Cormack: Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Nicholas Winterton: You have only five minutes.

Patrick Cormack: I do not even have five minutes. Let me make three points. First, we have artificial regions in this country, as many people have said. Secondly, the burden that the Select Committees will put on the workings of the House, and the clashes and conflicts with existing Select Committees, have not been properly thought out. Thirdly, I am totally opposed to drafting on to a Committee Members who have no connection with the region in question; that is grotesque. It is an appalling suggestion. The Grand Committees could be made to work, as long as Members from other regions are not drafted in. It is a good idea for all the Members who represent a designated region to meet once or twice a year, and to have Ministers before them; I accept that. However, to add on regional Select Committees, to pay the Chairmen of those Committees—
	 It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 250.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	 Amendment proposed: (a), in line 6, after '(Cm 7376)', insert
	'except that Chairmen of regional select committees shall not be paid.'. — [Andrew Mackinlay.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 237.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Main Question, as amended, put:
	 The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 224.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the Third Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on Regional Accountability (HC Paper No. 282); approves the proposals for regional select and grand committees for each of the English regions set out in the response from the Government in the White Paper, Regional Accountability (Cm 7376), except that the Chairmen of regional select committees shall not be paid; accordingly endorses the clear expectation that the regional select committees should meet significantly less frequently than departmental select committees; and considers that the combination of select committees providing opportunities for inquiries and reports into regional policy and administration together with opportunities for debate involving all honourable Members from the relevant region will provide a major step forward in the scrutiny of regional policy.

Regional Select Committees

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the following new Standing Order and amendment to temporary Standing Orders be made, with effect from 1st January 2009 until the end of the current Parliament—
	 A. New Standing Order
	 Regional select committees
	(1) Select committees shall be appointed to examine regional strategies and the work of regional bodies for each of the following English regions:
	(a) East Midlands
	(b) East of England
	(c) North East
	(d) North West
	(e) South East
	(f) South West
	(g) West Midlands
	(h) Yorkshire and the Humber.
	(2) Each committee appointed under this order shall consist of not more than nine members; and, unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to a committee shall continue to be members of that committee for the remainder of the Parliament.
	(3) A committee appointed under this order shall have power—
	(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn to any place within the United Kingdom, and to report from time to time;
	(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference;
	(c) to invite—
	(i) Members of the House who are not members of the committee but represent constituencies within the region in respect of which it is appointed, and
	(ii) specified elected councillors from the region in respect of which it is appointed
	to attend and participate in its proceedings at specified meetings (but not to move motions or amendments, vote or be counted in the quorum).
	 B. Amendment to Temporary Standing Order of 13th July 2005:
	 Liaison Committee (Membership)
	At end add—
	(4) In addition to the members appointed under paragraphs (2) and (3) of this order, one Member who is for the time being the Chairman of a Regional Select Committee shall be a member of the Liaison Committee.
	(5) The question on a motion in the names of the chairmen of all the Regional Select Committees to nominate a member of the Liaison Committee under paragraph (4) shall be put forthwith and may be decided after the moment of interruption.— [Chris Bryant.]
	 Amendment proposed, (b), in line 18, after 'members', insert
	'who represent constituencies within the relevant region'.— [Simon Hughes.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 90, Noes 235.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendment proposed: (c), in line 20, at end, insert—
	'(2A) In nominating Members to the Committees under this order, the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the proportion of Members of each party representing constituencies in the relevant region;
	(2B) Notwithstanding paragraph (2A), the Committee of Selection shall nominate at least one Member from each of the three largest parties to each Committee.'.— [Simon Hughes.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 231.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendment made: (d), in line 31, leave out from 'appointed' to end of line 33.— [Andrew Mackinlay.]
	 Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
	 Ordered ,
	That the following new Standing Order and amendment to temporary Standing Orders be made, with effect from 1st January 2009 until the end of the current Parliament—
	 A. New Standing Order
	 Regional select committees 
	(1) Select committees shall be appointed to examine regional strategies and the work of regional bodies for each of the following English regions:
	(a) East Midlands
	(b) East of England
	(c) North East
	(d) North West
	(e) South East
	(f) South West
	(g) West Midlands
	(h) Yorkshire and the Humber.
	(2) Each committee appointed under this order shall consist of not more than nine members; and, unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to a committee shall continue to be members of that committee for the remainder of the Parliament.
	(3) A committee appointed under this order shall have power—
	(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn to any place within the United Kingdom, and to report from time to time;
	(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference;
	(c) to invite Members of the House who are not members of the committee but represent constituencies within the region in respect of which it is appointed to attend and participate in its proceedings at specified meetings (but not to move motions or amendments, vote or be counted in the quorum).
	 B. Amendment to Temporary Standing Order of 13th July 2005:
	 Liaison Committee (Membership) 
	At end add—
	(4) In addition to the members appointed under paragraphs (2) and (3) of this order, one Member who is for the time being the Chairman of a Regional Select Committee shall be a member of the Liaison Committee.
	(5) The question on a motion in the names of the chairmen of all the Regional Select Committees to nominate a member of the Liaison Committee under paragraph (4) shall be put forthwith and may be decided after the moment of interruption.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall not call motions 5 or 6, as they would be inconsistent with the House's decision on motion 3, as amended. We now come to motions 7 and 8.

Regional Grand Committees

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the following new Standing Orders be made, with effect from 1st January 2009 until the end of the current Parliament—
	 A. Regional grand committees
	(1) There shall be general committees, called Regional Grand Committees, for each of the following English regions:
	(a) East Midlands
	(b) East of England
	(c) North East
	(d) North West
	(e) South East
	(f) South West
	(g) West Midlands
	(h) Yorkshire and the Humber
	which in each case shall consist of those Members who represent constituencies within the region and up to five other Members nominated by the Committee of Selection, which shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by it and to appoint others in their place.
	(2) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown providing for—
	(a) a Regional Grand Committee to sit on a specified day at a specified place in the region to which it relates or at Westminster;
	(b) the time and duration of such a sitting; and
	(c) the business as provided in paragraph (4) to be conducted at it.
	(3) The question on a motion under paragraph (2) shall be put forthwith and may be decided after the moment of interruption.
	(4) The business of the committees may include—
	(a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order (Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer));
	(b) statements by a Minister of the Crown, in accordance with paragraph (5) below;
	(c) general debates on specified matters.
	(5) The chairman may permit a Minister of the Crown, whether or not a Member of the House, to make a statement and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee; but no question shall be taken after the expiry of a period of 45 minutes from the commencement of such a statement.
	(6) If the House has resolved that the business at a sitting of a committee shall be concluded at a certain hour and it has not otherwise been concluded before that time the chairman shall, at that time, adjourn the committee without question put and any business then under consideration shall lapse.
	 B. Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer)
	(1) Notices of questions for oral answer in a Regional Grand Committee by the relevant regional minister, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (2) of Standing Order (Regional grand committees), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
	(2) Notices of questions given under this order shall bear an indication that they are for oral answer in a specific Regional Grand Committee.
	(3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified for the taking of questions.
	(4) On any day so specified, questions shall be taken at the time provided for in an order under paragraph (2) of Standing Order (Regional Grand Committees); no question shall be taken later than three quarters of an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with the official report of the committee's debates for that day.
	(5) Notices of questions under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which an answer is desired save where otherwise provided by a memorandum under paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments), provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.  [Ms. Harman.]
	 Amendment  made : (a), in line 1, after 'made', insert 'and Standing Order No. 117 (Regional Affairs Committee) be suspended' .—[ Sir George Young.]
	 Amendment proposed: (c), in line 15, leave out from 'region' to the end of line 18 .—[Simon Hughes.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 219.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
	 Ordered, ,
	That the following new Standing Orders be made and Standing Order No. 117 (Regional Affairs Committee) be suspended, with effect from 1st January 2009 until the end of the current Parliament—
	 A. Regional grand committees
	(1) There shall be general committees, called Regional Grand Committees, for each of the following English regions:
	(a) East Midlands
	(b) East of England
	(c) North East
	(d) North West
	(e) South East
	(f) South West
	(g) West Midlands
	(h) Yorkshire and the Humber
	which in each case shall consist of those Members who represent constituencies within the region and up to five other Members nominated by the Committee of Selection, which shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by it and to appoint others in their place.
	(2) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown providing for—
	(a) a Regional Grand Committee to sit on a specified day at a specified place in the region to which it relates or at Westminster;
	(b) the time and duration of such a sitting; and
	(c) the business as provided in paragraph (4) to be conducted at it.
	(3) The question on a motion under paragraph (2) shall be put forthwith and may be decided after the moment of interruption.
	(4) The business of the committees may include—
	(a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order (Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer));
	(b) statements by a Minister of the Crown, in accordance with paragraph (5) below;
	(c) general debates on specified matters.
	(5) The chairman may permit a Minister of the Crown, whether or not a Member of the House, to make a statement and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee; but no question shall be taken after the expiry of a period of 45 minutes from the commencement of such a statement.
	(6) If the House has resolved that the business at a sitting of a committee shall be concluded at a certain hour and it has not otherwise been concluded before that time the chairman shall, at that time, adjourn the committee without question put and any business then under consideration shall lapse.
	 B. Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer) 
	(1) Notices of questions for oral answer in a Regional Grand Committee by the relevant regional minister, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (2) of Standing Order (Regional grand committees), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
	(2) Notices of questions given under this order shall bear an indication that they are for oral answer in a specific Regional Grand Committee.
	(3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified for the taking of questions.
	(4) On any day so specified, questions shall be taken at the time provided for in an order under paragraph (2) of Standing Order (Regional Grand Committees); no question shall be taken later than three quarters of an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with the official report of the committee's debates for that day.
	(5) Notices of questions under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which an answer is desired save where otherwise provided by a memorandum under paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments), provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.

European Scrutiny (Standing Orders)

Chris Bryant: I beg to move,
	That the amendments to Standing Order No. 119 and the amendments to nomenclature in the Standing Orders agreed to by this House on 7th February 2008, shall have permanent effect from 1st January 2009.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: amendment (a), line 4, at end add
	'and that paragraph 10 of Standing Order No. 143 be replaced by the following paragraph:
	'(10) Each such Committee shall determine at the beginning of each meeting whether any part of or all of its business that day shall be conducted in private';
	and that the Standing Order, as amended, shall have permanent effect from 1st January 2009.'.
	Motion 9— Modernisation of the House of Commons (Changes to Standing Orders)—
	That the amendments to the Standing Orders and new Orders, agreed to by this House on 25th October 2007, relating to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons in its First Report of Session 2006-07, Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the back bench Member (House of Commons Paper No. 337 of Session 2006-07) and the Government response thereto (Cm. 7231) shall have permanent effect with the following amendments—
	(1) In Standing Order No. 24A (Topical debates)—
	(d) in line 19, leave out 'six' and insert 'ten'; and
	(e) in line 24, leave out from 'to' to the end of line 26 and insert 'a maximum of five interventions.'.
	(2) In Standing Order No. 24B (Amendments to motions to consider specified matters)—
	(a) in line 1, after 'Speaker', insert 'or the Chairman'; and
	(b) in line 2, after 'House', insert 'or, as the case may be, the committee'.
	And the following amendment thereto: (a), leave out lines 9 to 12.

Chris Bryant: I will refer first to motion 9, on issues relating to the modernisation of the House of Commons. Broadly speaking, it rolls forward measures that have already been in place for some time. First, we are making sure that the topical debates that we have held for the past year can continue for the foreseeable future. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House held a review of the operation of topical debates earlier this year. I think that many hon. Members have enjoyed the opportunity to have a more topical debate on a Thursday afternoon on one of the issues of the week. My right hon. and learned Friend now publishes monthly a list of all requests for topical debates, and that is a good principle.
	We are introducing some changes this year. We have always held one-and-a-half hour topical debates on a Thursday, although we have said that we will look into whether it is possible to hold them on other days. Several hon. Members have become worried that Front Benchers monopolise the debates and that Back Benchers are not allowed enough time to take part. If the motion is carried, there will be less time available to the main— Government and official Opposition—Front Benchers, but the amount of time available to the Liberal Democrats spokesmen will increase slightly from six to 10 minutes. The irony is that, currently, the six minutes allowed for the Liberal Democrat spokesperson is often a shorter period than that allowed in the rest of the debate for Liberal Democrat Back Benchers. We might want to hear a little less from some Liberal Democrat Front Benchers—I am not looking at anyone in particular—but, none the less, we are moving the proposal that there should be equality between the three Front Benches.

Angus Robertson: Will the Deputy Leader of the House take this opportunity to outline his thinking about the position of spokespeople from the political parties of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales?

Chris Bryant: No, I do not think that I should like to take this opportunity to do that. I note that the hon. Gentleman has not tabled an amendment to the motion, and he could have done, because it has been on the Order Paper for a full week now. However, I want to ensure that all Members have an opportunity to take part equally, so if he has proposals he should feel free to come and talk to me about them.
	We are taking forward another measure that has been in operation over the past year: emergency debates. We have changed Standing Order No. 24, and the new system will allow for greater flexibility so that Mr. Speaker can determine not only the date of the debate—formerly, it could be taken only on the next day, immediately—but its length. Previously, such debates could go on for only three hours, but if the motion is approved Mr. Speaker will be able to determine that it continue for longer.
	Hon. Members will know that one of the other innovations over the past year has been topical questions. Members have pretty much universally welcomed the fact that, during every Question Time, matters that are entirely topical can be raised, because the questions are effectively open. That has added a much greater sense of topicality and interest. Sometimes I wonder whether the Opposition parties have decided always to use the topical session merely as a means to try to trip up the Government, but it is clear that the whole House supports such opportunities, and as their continuing does not depend on any Standing Order change, it is not mentioned in the motion.

David Taylor: The Deputy Leader of the House refers to topical questions that are a part of the daily round of departmental questions to Ministers, but from watching the situation closely from the Back Benches, I must say that there is some evidence of Members who had questions on the Order Paper that were not reached using the topical sessions as a top-up, even though what they have asked has not been especially topical. How in my hon. Friend's view will Mr. Speaker or any other occupant of the Chair deal with that?

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who watches such matters very closely and is regularly in the House for departmental questions.

Harriet Harman: Back Bencher of the year.

Chris Bryant: Indeed, as my right hon. and learned Friend whispers, my hon. Friend is Back Bencher of the year—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] I look forward to seeing him more frequently in the Division Lobby with me. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would not want me to infringe on the power of the Chair to determine whether a question is topical. In the past, we could have had an entire hour-long Question Time without the day's elephant in the room being referred to at all. Now, that is no longer possible, and the topical session is a significant improvement to the way in which we do our business.

Mark Hendrick: Will my hon. Friend give his view on the fact that Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople use topical questions more and more, yet as I understand it the original intention was for them to be the tool of Back Benchers? What should happen in that instance?

Chris Bryant: The idea behind topical questions—and topical debates, for that matter—was to allow Back Benchers, primarily, a greater crack of the whip in the Chamber. I have been asked questions by Opposition Members who pretend to be Back Benchers, but 10 minutes later suddenly become Front Benchers on a completely different subject. However, that is part of how the House operates.

Greg Hands: If questioners are to be criticised if their questions are not topical, Ministers must be expected to have an answer ready if they are asked a topical question. Earlier this week, I asked about cuts in the BBC Russian service, of which the Deputy Leader of the House will be well aware. The Minister concerned seemed blissfully unaware of the controversy that had been raging about the issue in the press during the previous two days. Her answer was simply that she would write to me. When Back Benchers such as me ask topical questions, we surely have a right to expect Ministers to be able to provide topical answers.

Chris Bryant: I am not sure that omniscience is handed out to every Minister. One of the difficulties with topical questions is that Ministers can be asked questions about anything under the sun, within their remit. Sometimes it is difficult for Ministers to have immediately to hand or on the tip of their tongues the precise answer that the questioner is looking for. Sometimes a Minister should be able to say, "I am terribly sorry. I do not know the answer to that question, but I will get back to the hon. Gentleman." A degree of magnanimity—"as magnanimous as Agamemnon", as Shakespeare put it—might be in order.

Mark Hendrick: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Chris Bryant: I shall, but I am keen to make a bit of progress.

Mark Hendrick: I thank my hon. Friend for being generous with his time. In answer to my previous intervention, he referred to Opposition Front Benchers secreting themselves on the Back Benches to make topical points. I was referring to Front-Bench spokespeople on the Front Bench using time allotted for topical questions to make known their views on the relevant matters.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I have noted that Mr. Speaker tends to allow the topical questions period to roll on when that has happened. I underline that it is essential that Back-Bench Members from both sides of the House get an opportunity to quiz the Government. Although, obviously, it is appropriate for Front-Bench spokespeople to make points during Question Time, sometimes the most percipient points are made by Back Benchers.
	I turn to the motions relating to European scrutiny. We intend to roll forward the changes to Standing Order No. 119 which have been in operation for the past year and would lapse if we were not to renew them at the end of this calendar year. How we scrutinise European business is essential to how we scrutinise the Government.
	We have made several innovations in the past year. One of them is the E section in the Order Paper, and it has been particularly useful. It alerts right hon. and hon. Members about which European Committee will be considering which documents from the European Union—from the Council, the Commission or the Parliament—and when. That gives all hon. Members the opportunity to follow the issues if they want. As a Back Bencher, I took a significant interest in all matters European, and I remember that it was often difficult to find out precisely where those issues were debated. Section E is a significant innovation.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I have the Chairman's authority to speak on his behalf. [Hon. Members: He is here!"] I am sorry. My Lord!
	We all welcome the capacity to probe European issues. The real problem is not the procedure, but the timetabling. Will the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House talk to the Whips and the usual channels through the Clerks and the Chairmen so that members of the feeder Committees such as the Foreign Affairs Committee can attend those sittings without there being a clash with the core business of the feeder Committees? It is a reasonable request.

Chris Bryant: I am sure that my hon. Friend considers all his requests reasonable. I agree with him. I was about to say that one of the other innovations relating to Standing Orders is that European Committees may now have present members of the European Scrutiny Committee and the relevant departmental Committee. It is sometimes a tall order to be able to arrange hon. Members' timings. I am happy to speak to the Whips and to others about that.

Mike Gapes: rose—

Chris Bryant: I see that my hon. Friend wishes to intervene. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) referred to him as nobility, but I do not think that he has yet become a satrap.

Mike Gapes: I hope that he never does.
	My hon. Friend knows that I have written to the Leader of the House, and I have had replies from him and from his predecessor on this issue, which is still unresolved. If we are to extend this temporary arrangement, then ways must be found to ensure that members of a Select Committee who might be considering serving on such a Committee are given sufficient notice so that we do not come up with names and then find that there are clashes with other people's arrangements. Surely the authorities in the parties, in the Whips Offices and wherever can find ways of giving us proper notice so that we can find people to serve on these Committees.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to find a way of making this work better, because it is a good innovation. I am sure that there are not many Members who do not think that it is a good idea to have expert Members from departmental Committees informing the debate in a European Committee that is analysing a particular document. For instance, in March this year, when European defence was being considered by a European Committee, it was important that two members of the Defence Committee and a member of the European Scrutiny Committee—the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—were present. That significantly improved the quality of the debate that could be had.
	Another important innovation dependent on the motion is that a member of the European Scrutiny Committee should be able to make a five-minute statement at the beginning of the debate. This is about improving the quality of the work that we do in European Committees, which are often undervalued by Members, for whatever reason. It is important that we do everything we can to try to rectify the problem, which is particularly acute in relation to Committees such as that chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) which already meet frequently, so there is a heavy burden on them. I undertake to work closely with him, with the Whips Offices and with the House authorities to try to ensure that we can overcome this problem and thereby improve the quality of our European scrutiny.
	Let me turn to the amendment tabled by the shadow Leader of the House, which relates to whether there should be a presumption on the European Scrutiny Committee meeting in public unless it chooses to meet in private or a presumption on its meeting in private unless it chooses to meet in public. It is a shame that her amendment was tabled so late yesterday, because its wording means that it would not fulfil the function that I think she would want it to. The amendments to Standing Order No. 143 are not being taken forward, so her amendment would not apply. Equally importantly, it refers to "Each such Committee", but the Standing Order refers to only one Committee, so there is some ambiguity there.

William Cash: It so happens that paragraph (10) of Standing Order No. 143 specifies that
	"The committee, and every such sub-committee, shall"—
	it is mandatory—
	"sit in public unless it determines otherwise in relation to a particular meeting or part thereof."
	That could not be clearer. Irrespective of any point that the hon. Gentleman may wish to make about the drafting of a particular amendment—on which I will make no comment because I will be supporting it—the current presumption is that the Committee is required to sit in public unless it has determined otherwise in relation to a particular meeting.

Chris Bryant: Leaving aside the drafting, there is a more important and substantive issue: whether there should be a presumption that the Committee meets in private unless it chooses to meet in public, or the other way round.

Greg Hands: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: I would like to advance my argument a little, but then I will be more than happy to give way.
	First and foremost, it is the accepted practice of this House, in every other Committee, that they meet in private when deliberating, and in public when considering evidence. That is an important principle, which has been reasserted by many Speakers of this House throughout the centuries, not least because if the deliberating process of a Select Committee or any other Committee were an open matter, the proper deliberation of a report would be thoroughly undermined. Many hon. Members will recall that drafts of Committee reports have sometimes leaked, leading to an investigation by the House as to why.

William Cash: rose—

Greg Hands: rose—

Chris Bryant: I will give way to both hon. Gentlemen in a moment, if they will allow me to continue.
	It is an important part of the accepted practice of this House that every Committee should meet in private when it is deliberating and in public when it is taking evidence.

Greg Hands: The current Committee system for European scrutiny is simply not working. At the moment, according to the Standing Orders, we meet as soon as is convenient after 11 o'clock. We meet in private at 11, and as soon as is convenient after 11. People who show up to our Committee have simply no idea of when it will start. A constituent of mine, with a personal and professional interest in environmental policy, has been visiting for some weeks, and has written to me saying:
	"For several months now I have been trying to attend sittings of the European Scrutiny Committee which I understand to meet in public and to regularly review EU legislation in this field. On several occasions I waited for nearly one hour outside what is apparently the committee's meeting room only to be told that no one could say when the public session would start...I regret to tell you that your body, which is apparently entrusted with scrutinising EU laws, appears to be a bad joke and a farce. The EU is accused of being secretive. What is our Parliament but exactly the same?"
	If the hon. Gentleman were in the position of a member of the public trying to attend our Committee, he would find it practically impossible to do so because he would be left sitting outside for an interminable length of time.

Chris Bryant: It is certainly true that when I visited the European Scrutiny Committee it felt as if time had stood still. However, the hon. Gentleman—and if I may say so, his constituent—makes an important mistake. The European Scrutiny Committee— [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Gentleman will keep calm and listen. The Committee is not there to decide on the policy of this House with regard to any piece of European legislation. It is there to do a specific job, which is to decide where a document or policy recommendation should be properly considered. Every place where such matters are properly considered is fully open and has no private sittings. I say to the hon. Gentleman, and anyone else who is urging change on this matter, that there is a fundamental misconception about the nature of the European Scrutiny Committee.

William Cash: In the debate on 7 February, the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), said that she agreed
	"with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead that, in general, there is a good case for the important work of sifting to be done in public."
	She went on to say, in a presumably well-informed comment:
	"the Government will come back to the House with a revised form of words providing for the ESC to have the power to decide whether to meet in public for the purposes of sifting documents."—[ Official Report, 7 February 2008; Vol. 471, c. 1182.]
	When the amendment was tabled, it was exactly as I said. In other words, the presumption was that the Committee should be in public, except in a particular case.

Chris Bryant: But since then, the European Scrutiny Committee, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, has met and considered whether it should meet in public or private and it has decided to go in the other direction. That was not just a matter of Eurosceptics voting for everything to be in public and Europhiles—or sensible, pragmatic Europeans—voting for the Committee to meet in private for its deliberations.

Kelvin Hopkins: rose—

Chris Bryant: I was just coming to my hon. Friend. My very honourable, very friendly friend from Luton, North, with whom I disagree on many matters relating to Europe, none the less voted with the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty).

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend's comments throughout the debate. Does he accept from someone who has served on the Committee for more than a year and who has seen it in both modes—the mode before the public mode worked well—that what happens now is farcical and simply does not work?

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that I have said previously that some hon. Members have a single transferable speech on European matters—I know I do—and my hon. Friend has heard it many times, as has the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), who is chuntering on the Conservative Front Bench. There is a confusion of principle, which hon. Members who want to insist that the Committee always meet in public, are asserting.
	In the Lords, one person, namely Lord Grenfell, does the sifting in private, and there is little criticism of the way in which the House of Lords conducts that business. I do not advocate moving to a position whereby only my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, does the sifting, because the process of advising the Committee is important.
	That leads me to another point about the confusion in some hon. Members' minds. Those who advise the Committee are advisers to the Committee, not the Government. That is an important principle. Many Select Committees have advisers and it is not right for them to have to provide their advice in public. They should give their advice in private as part of the deliberative process so that Members can go on in public sittings to make whatever speeches they want.
	We are not considering whether we believe that matters should be kept private or public. I have argued from the Back Benches that it is important to conduct European scrutiny far better than we have done in the past. I believe that the measures that we introduced in the past year, which we want to roll forward, have made a significant contribution. I point out to Conservative Members that not only Labour Members in the European Scrutiny Committee voted in favour of the option for the Committee to vote to sit in private. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who could hardly be described as a rabid, pro-Labour pro-European, also voted for that.

Theresa May: I beg to move amendment (a) to motion 8, in line 3, at end add
	'and that paragraph 10 of Standing Order No.143 be replaced by the following paragraph:
	'(10) Each such Committee shall determine at the beginning of each meeting whether any part of or all of its business that day shall be conducted in private';
	and that the Standing Order, as amended, shall have permanent effect from 1st January 2009.'.
	I should also like to move amendment (a) to motion 9.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Amendment (a) to motion 9 will be dealt with formally at the end of proceedings. However, that does not prevent the right hon. Lady from speaking about it.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I intended only to speak about amendment (a) to motion 9.
	The Deputy Leader of the House claims that amendment (a) to motion 8 is not fundamentally about whether the European Scrutiny Committee should meet in public or private, but it is precisely about that. It is about whether the House's deliberations on European legislation should be open and transparent, with members of the public able to come in to hear and see the decisions that hon. Members make about the importance or otherwise of European legislation.
	It is a great pity that casual readers of the Government's motion would think that it was merely about confirming some small changes to the way in which the House scrutinises European legislation. I am happy to support the changes. Indeed, I believe that the House should go considerably further—I have published a document and proposals on the matter, but they are for another day. However, the casual reader would miss the fact that the Government are trying to take the Committee back to the position that pertained before our debate on 7 February. They are trying to reconsider whether the deliberations of the European Scrutiny Committee, when it is determining the importance of legislation from the European Commission for the House and the country, should be available and open to members of the public or be carried out behind closed doors.

Jimmy Hood: The right hon. Lady knows that no other Committee deliberates in public. What is so special about the European Scrutiny Committee that it should do so in public, and what effect would that have on the advisers to the Committee? Is it not the case that the real scrutiny is done when legislation undergoes further scrutiny in the European Committee or Select Committee?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman asks about the difference between the European Scrutiny Committee and the other Committees mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the House when he was talking about the normal procedures of the House. I was about to make the point that I disagree with the Government's position precisely because the European Scrutiny Committee is very different from other Select Committees. The other Select Committees take evidence in public on issues, and then they decide what they are going to say about those issues. The European Scrutiny Committee is completely different. It decides the importance of the legislation from Europe that constitutes 50 to 70 per cent. of the legislation passed in this country. That is very different from the normal job of a Select Committee.
	Labour Members get very excited about this issue, but it has long been my view that one of the problems in the debate about European legislation is that many people feel that it is something that is done to us, without this Parliament giving it any proper scrutiny. The figures show that of the 1,000 or so documents that the European Scrutiny Committee sees each year, only some 500 are considered to be significant and only some 50 receive proper scrutiny and debate. It is my firm belief that if we opened up the process to show what the House is doing on European legislation, it would be valuable in showing the public the role that the House plays. We should go further in scrutinising European legislation, but the debate today is about the European Scrutiny Committee.

Keith Hill: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the note from the Library that reveals that a maximum of 10 per cent. of the statutory instruments considered by the House originate in Europe? Can she offer the House the evidence she has for her assertion that 60 to 70 per cent. of our legislation originates in Europe?

Theresa May: I am tempted to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am happy to offer supporting evidence, but I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will also be happy to provide it.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The 50 per cent. estimate is an underestimate. It is more like 80 per cent.—at least, that was the conclusion of the Bundestag committee that examined this issue. It is not only statutory instruments that implement EU legislation: all EU regulations are implemented directly, without any implementing legislation, although that is done under the authority of this House. If we take into account the totality of statute and regulation, the figure is nearly 80 per cent., and my right hon. Friend was being characteristically modest and cautious in her estimate.

Theresa May: I bow to my right hon. Friend's superior knowledge of this issue as he has spent rather more time on it.

Adrian Bailey: Does the right hon. Lady believe that the advice given by the civil servants to the Committee should be subject to public debate? If so, does she think that that will affect the nature of that advice?

Theresa May: I have thought long and hard about this particular issue. As hon. Members will see, and as I did in the amendment that was accepted by the Government and the House as a whole in February, I would provide the opportunity for the Committee to meet in private when that is considered necessary. I accept that there will be some issues, perhaps relating to national security, when that will be important. Therefore, the Committee needs to have that option available to it.
	I take a different view from the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) on what would happen in relation to the advice. It is important that people have an opportunity not only to see proceedings in person by coming to the Committee, as the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) has been trying to do, but to read the official record the deliberations of the Committee, and therefore be able to see why it has taken decisions about the importance of certain documents.
	Labour Members have said, "Ah, but the proper debate takes place when the documents get to other Committees," but this is a sifting process. It is therefore important for people to see decisions taken by this Parliament as to which documents require further discussion by the Parliament and which do not, and which are dismissed as things that can simply be cleared through the House without the House taking any further interest in them, as well as why those decisions have been taken.

James Clappison: Does my right hon. Friend believe that it is a massive own goal by those who would argue in favour of Europe that they are cloaking their proceedings in secrecy? That is completely at odds with what the Government said in our Lisbon debates, when they talked about a new relationship between national Parliaments and the EU. The first thing they do is insist on secrecy in discussing these documents.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. As I said, it has long been my view that the process of helping members of the public to understand a little more about what happens in Europe and the decisions that come out of it is part of showing what the House does and what takes place in it. Secrecy in the House only makes people think even more that we have no say in what is happening in the EU.
	I say to all those on the Labour Benches and all those around the House who believe strongly in full participation in the EU that opening up this Committee is part—one small part—of showing people that this Parliament does have a say and takes its job seriously.

Michael Connarty: I have a very small point to raise with the shadow Leader of the House. To use the word "secret" is improper: on a weekly basis, the Committee publishes every single report on any document that is considered, and those reports are available to the public, so it cannot be secret. Things may happen in private, but she should not call it secret, or she is saying that every deliberation of every Committee is secret. If a Committee publishes its results, they cannot be secret.

Theresa May: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that what is—

Angus Robertson: The discussion is secret.

Theresa May: What is not revealed to the public—I thank the hon. Gentleman—is the discussion that takes place within the Committee as to the purposes of the Committee.
	I recognise that some important reports have been published by the Committee. For example, the report on the statutory reserve in relation to the Lisbon treaty was significant, but I still believe that the process and discussion on the sifting of those documents should take place in public. The presumption should be that the Committee meet in public. That is why my amendment is worded as it is. The presumption is that it would meet in public and start its meetings in public. If it chose to go into private session, people could see that as well.

Mark Hendrick: Contrary to what the right hon. Lady said earlier in highlighting the difference between this Select Committee and others, this Committee takes evidence from Ministers and regularly debates things in full view of the public. In talking about Europe being "done" to this country, she seems to forget that there is a European Parliament to which people from the UK are directly elected to deliberate on our behalf, see everything that is produced by the Commission and vote on legislation, in some cases before it even gets to the House. I cannot understand the right hon. Lady's logic. Would not some of her Back-Bench colleagues wish to grandstand on many of these issues because they are not winning the arguments in the House?

Theresa May: If the hon. Gentleman disputes my comments about the general public's views about what happens in this House to legislation from Brussels, he should ask people on the street what they think. The majority of people in this country believe that European legislation just comes out of Brussels and that Parliament does not play a proper— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman says that those beliefs are not true, but in that case he should support my amendment, so that people can see that it is not true. That is the whole point of what I have proposed.

Mark Hendrick: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Theresa May: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.

Chris Bryant: Will the shadow Leader of the House tell us whether she visited the European Scrutiny Committee last year in its previous incarnation, whether she has visited it this year and if so, whether she noticed any difference, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) described?

Theresa May: The Deputy Leader of the House asks that question because he knows the answer. I have not visited the European Scrutiny Committee; I have, however, spoken in some depth to those who serve on it. They do not just visit the Committee, but take part in all its meetings—we will come shortly to the impact that the debate that we had on 7 February and the motion that we passed then has had on the Committee's meetings.

Desmond Swayne: Is the difficulty not so much that the Committee wants to hide its deliberations on so many European documents behind a cloak of secrecy, but that it wants to give the impression that there are no such deliberations? Huge reams of material go through entirely unscrutinised and on the nod, and if people saw that in public, they would never stand for it.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that extremely important point. The precise point is that people should be able to see what is happening. As it happens, my proposals to change European scrutiny would give the House much greater abilities to scrutinise European legislation in a variety of ways.  [ Interruption. ] I hope that my hon. Friend is comfortable now that he is back on the Front Bench.
	I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to contribute and I want to make progress. When the House accepted the 7 February change to procedures, there was a presumption that the Committee would meet in public and go into private session only in special and exceptional circumstances. Sadly, what has happened, as evidenced by the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham who has been trying to attend meetings of the Committee, is that meetings have started in private. Members of the public who attend do not know when meetings will be opened up for a public session and they often give up and go away.

Greg Hands: My right hon. Friend is being generous in giving way again. The situation is even worse than that. Although the Committee starts in private and at a point not determined in advance goes into public session, it also has the right to return to sitting in private at any time thereafter. The meeting could therefore have three stages, which is extremely repellent for any member of the public who wants to attend.

Theresa May: I accept my hon. Friend's point, which is about the frustration both of the desire of those of us who tabled the amendment on 7 February and, I believe, of the will of the House at that time, which was in favour of a presumption that meetings would be held in public. It is important that meetings should start in public.

David Borrow: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Theresa May: No, I am sorry; I will now make progress.
	If the Committee decides that it wants to go into private session, people can see that it has taken the deliberate decision to carry on without their being able to see what is being done.
	I want briefly to mention motion 9 and amendment (a) to it. The Deputy Leader of the House started by describing how the motion favoured Back Benchers, in that it would reduce the amount of time that Front Benchers have to speak. It is certainly true that the proposal would reduce the amount of time given to Front Benchers in relation to interventions. I also accept the need to ensure that Back Benchers have a suitable amount of time to speak in topical debates.
	I do not accept, however, that the Liberal Democrats should be given the same amount of time to speak as the official Opposition. I hope that the House will support my amendment, which would ensure that the conventions— [ Interruption. ] The Deputy Leader of the House laughs, but he was talking about the usual practice of the House earlier, and the usual practice is that the Government and the official Opposition are given the prime time and that the Liberal Democrats are not treated in the same way.
	Many other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I urge the House to support the amendments that I tabled. It is important to the whole debate about Europe that we open up the procedures of the House on the scrutiny of European legislation and enable members of the public to see those and to read about the deliberations that have taken place in the Committee in the official record. That way, people will be able justifiably to challenge us on what the House does when it comes to European legislation.

Michael Connarty: May I first deal with the calumny of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)? He has probably never asked his hon. Friends who sit on the European Scrutiny Committee to see the paperwork it deals with. Those who take it seriously read every paper. That is the secret of European legislation: reading all the papers. I can assure him, as the Chairman of the Committee, that I read every document that comes, including the explanatory memorandum from the Department concerned and, often, the material that comes from the European Union, as do many other members of the Committee. That could be one of the problems: it is a heavy load to lift, and when people become involved in it, they can become somewhat obsessed.
	I want to put it on record that it is not correct that in the February debate the House agreed that the Committee should meet in public in such a way that would not protect the members of staff of the House—they are not civil servants—who give us advice. Therefore, we had to construct a method—I believe that I said on the record that we could construct a system whereby we could get information from our advisers without their becoming, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) said, the cat's paw of the European scrutiny process—that ensured that it is the Committee, not the staff, that is reported. We have a private sitting in which we question the staff who put together their advice on the letters—the correspondence section—and the explanatory memorandums that we receive. The latter involves questions on A briefs, which, as has been said, are politically and economically important, and B briefs, which are considered not to be politically important, even if people sometimes decide that they should come back as A briefs so that they can be formally reported to the House. That was the construction.
	If Members were serious about the public attending—I am talking specifically about the Members who keep telling us that their constituents are banging down the door to get in—they would not talk at such great length and keep the public out. If we look at reports of Committee meetings, we see that the public sittings run for 10 or 15 minutes and, even if they are longer, they are certainly less than half an hour. However, reports of private sittings, in which Opposition Members who are obsessed about Europe talk at great length—on many occasions they talk off the subject, just to show that they know about everything to do with Europe—show that sittings can last for more than two hours. The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) said that his constituents sit outside gasping to come in, but they are kept out by the very Members who are supposed to want them in. That is truth of what happens: it has turned into a farce.
	If the shadow Leader of the House and her deputy—the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara)—had accepted the invitation that I put to them in writing to come to the meetings, as the former Deputy Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and the present Deputy Leader of the House did, they would see that public meetings are greatly delayed by the activities of Opposition Members who cannot seem to stop themselves grandstanding on every issue .

Theresa May: If the hon. Gentleman is so enthusiastic about members of the public being able to see what is happening in his Committee, as Chairman of the Committee he can to move into the public session earlier. The deliberations of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—if that is who he is implying—or other members of the Committee would then be in public.

Michael Connarty: If the right hon. Lady looks back at the debate, she will find that the House decided that we should protect officials of the House when they give us advice. That is not possible unless we go through the process. We must treat their advice seriously, but in private sittings I have seen members of my Committee arguing, sometimes three or four times, to try to get an official to change the recommendation that they stand by. That is not what the Committee is about, but that is what is happening.

Greg Hands: rose—

William Cash: rose—

Michael Connarty: I am going to continue.
	Let me explain what the Committee does. We decide whether— [Interruption.] I am not giving way yet. We decide whether something is economically or politically important and whether it should be sent somewhere else for further scrutiny. We do that after correspondence, which is dealt with as a private matter—the correct way to deal with ongoing correspondence with a Minister—and we do it by calling for evidence from a Minister, who defends the Government's position in front of us. That happens if we think the Government are taking a wrong decision and breaking a scrutiny reserve. Alternatively, we send it for a debate—a public debate that any Member, not just those in the European Scrutiny Committee or other relevant Committees, can attend. We sometimes send a matter to the Floor of the House for debate and we sometimes produce specific reports. The shadow Leader of the House mentioned our recent report on the Lisbon treaty and another recent one on subsidiarity; those are public documents.
	I believe that those processes can be undertaken without any need for the public to attend. I am quite sorry that we have reached this position, because we have failed to deliver a system that protects our officers and at the same time allows the Committee to function properly. We had an informal meeting on that, but certain Members who talk at great length did not bother to turn up to discuss with our officials—in confidence and in private—how to modify the system. They did not turn up, so we brought it back to a public sitting of the Committee and put a resolution to the Leader of House that, in line with the normal practice of Select Committees, we should deliberate in private. That is the fact of the matter.

Angus Robertson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is an excellent Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, that the status quo is not sustainable. However, does he agree with me that going back to meeting largely in private, other than when evidence is being taken, will not be understood by the public? Although it may cause problems for the advisers, who may feel that they cannot be as open as they could if we met in public all the time, does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, on balance—it is a fine judgment call—it is much better to meet in public than in private?

Michael Connarty: I would have thought that over the past 10 years we could have introduced a system to achieve that. The shadow Leader of the House failed to say that Labour Members accepted an agreement to try to work out a system and not to force the Standing Order amendment that was on the Order Paper in February. That system might have worked and might have been a move in the right direction, but we did not get the chance to try it because the Standing Order was forced on to the Order Paper the night before—as in the present case—and very late in the day when many Members had already been allowed to go home to their families. They were not in the House; that is the truth of it.
	This time, we have to face reality. I would love to work our way out of this. I do not know whether the Conservative party wants to allow its Members to get it out of their system every week by regaling our Committee. People who read the papers are told what is in the papers by Opposition Members and then the arguments go on interminably—a good word that the shadow Leader of the House used—in Committee. We thus do not get to the point, which is to discuss not the merits but the importance of a document in order to get it sent to the appropriate place for further discussion. The failure has resulted from the way in which the Committee has been treated by Conservative Members. I am sorry about that, but the only way forward I can see is to deliberate in private, and then perhaps to have a sensible discussion about how we can move towards a better system so that the public get the chance to see all we do. I wonder how many Opposition Members, apart from Committee members, have read the weekly chapters in these documents. How many of them have read the reports produced by  Hansard? Very few have done so.

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman take up an invitation that I extend to him? In return for having all these proceedings in public, could the public have the right to decide whether the so-called interminable arguments, to which he refers, are justified or not? A number of recent documents got through only through his casting vote.

Michael Connarty: I think that my casting vote was always given on the recommendation of the Committee's officials, because I respect their ability and judgment and the way in which they have supported my Committee.
	Let me say, in finality—

David Borrow: rose—

Michael Connarty: Of course I will give way.

David Borrow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that at the heart of the debate is the question of whether the desirability of the Committee's holding all its sittings in public—which, if it included the advice given by Committee officials, could restrict the clarity of that advice and pose the risk that the Committee would make poorer decisions—should outweigh the fact that if the officials give their advice in private, they can be open and blunt and better decisions may result? Is that not the balance that the House must strike? The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has clearly concluded that he would prefer these issues to be dealt with in public, with the risk that the Committee will make poorer decisions. I take a different view, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend would like to comment.

Michael Connarty: As I said at the outset, and as I have said all along, for as long as I have been a member of the Committee I have inclined to the idea that we should open up and add the public to what we already have, which is a fairly disciplined process in the private sessions. Adding the public sessions has turned our business into something completely different. I regret that, because I must now step back and say that if I want the Committee to work efficiently, and if I want Members to take the business seriously without being regularly harangued, we must return to private sessions.

Anthony Steen: rose—

Michael Connarty: I did say "in finality".
	My final point is not about what happens in the Committee. I still regret the fact that, under the Standing Orders, we no longer have three European Standing Committees with fixed membership. That would have allowed us to have 15 or 16 Members on those three Committees who would learn about European business, and would regularly bring that experience to our Committee. That is how I came on to the Committee, but now there is an ad hoc system of appointing members, and all that we have to supplement that membership are the two European Scrutiny Committee members. They give our Committee direction, and I support the idea that members should come from the "subject" Committees, but the fact remains that they already possess knowledge of Europe and European business. We are not training a new set of people in European business, as we used to when there was set membership of the three Standing Committees.
	Nevertheless, although I deeply regret that, I support the Government within the confines of the motion.

Anthony Steen: I feel that I must make a confession. As the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood) will recall, I set the hare running when I observed that there were enough Tory Members to defeat the Labour Members. As a result, we tabled a motion proposing that we meet in public.
	I have been a Committee member since those early days, and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with the following propositions. First, the present system does not work. Secondly, we need to be more open. Thirdly, we have not found a way of ensuring that that happens, and we must do so. Perhaps we should attempt to adjourn this debate, and have a discussion outside about how we can do it.

Michael Connarty: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's substantial diplomatic skills. I think that if we had approached the situation in that manner when the Leader of the House made the offer in February, we might have made some progress rather than finding ourselves in the present impasse. I deeply regret that too, and I hope that Members will support the Government in the Lobby.

Richard Younger-Ross: I wish to deal with an issue which, although it is occupying a smaller part of the debate, is as important as the rest—topical debates. We welcome the Government amendments. We particularly welcome the provision of 10 minutes rather than six, principally because that is the procedure followed in other parts of the House such as Westminster Hall, and we see no reason for it to be rejected. As for the Conservative amendment, I think it particularly mean that more Conservative Front Benchers than Liberal Democrat Front Benchers will always be called to speak because of the balance of membership in the House, and the ratio of those who are likely to catch the Speaker's eye will be three or four to one. That is in the nature of things.
	We need a more open way of deciding the subject of the topical debate. In April, the Procedure Committee recommended the following:
	"A topical debate business committee should be established which would be responsible for the scheduling of and choice of subject for topical debates. Its membership should include backbenchers and business managers. Its chairman should be a backbencher."
	Will the Deputy Leader of the House consider that? Alternatively, will he explain why that recommendation cannot be implemented? He may conclude that he does not want to go down that path, but does he recognise that if we do not use a cross-party business committee to choose the subject, more needs to be done to improve the transparency of this selection process? Members need to know the rationale behind the choices made, because the subjects sometimes do not appear to be inherently topical. Tomorrow, we shall debate obesity, but I am unsure as to why, all of a sudden, that should be the subject of a topical debate, despite its importance.
	Let me turn to the substantive issue of the quality of debate in the European Scrutiny Committee. I have sat on the Committee for just over three years, and I served on European Standing Committees for four years before that. I take the point made by the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), that those Committees were a good training ground. I wish that we could return to a situation where people served some time on them, and perhaps we could consider that. As he will recall, the problem was that Members who were put on to the European Standing Committees felt as though they were being sent to Siberia—they felt as though they were being punished by the Whips by being made to serve on those Committees for a long time. Whether or not that was a misperception on the part of some Members, the system had its merits, and we need to examine how that structure worked.
	As the shadow Leader of the House has mentioned, there needs to be a still wider debate on how we undertake scrutiny in this House. Denmark joined what is now the EU at the same time as the UK, but it has a far more robust system of scrutiny, as do all the new countries that have joined. [Hon. Members: "No they don't!"] A number of them do. Finland has a robust system, of which the Modernisation Committee was enamoured when it visited that country—it was the basis for one of the proposals as to how we reform scrutiny, but that was rejected. Both the previous and existing Chairs of the European Scrutiny Committee are in the Chamber, and they, like other Members who have served on it, know that proposals have been made on this matter. The shadow Leader of the House made a series of proposals that would have brought Members of the European Parliament to sit alongside us. That seemed to go down fairly well in certain circles until it reached the Whips, who seemingly decided that they could not control what was emerging and so it was flattened.

Anthony Steen: In the hon. Gentleman's mind, does "robust" equal open or open to the public? Why does he think that serving on those Committees was like being in Siberia? Some people enjoyed being on them.

Richard Younger-Ross: Some people love going to Siberia. The process must be robust and open. Robust does not, of itself, mean open.

Mark Hendrick: The hon. Gentleman, I think, served on the Committee when I did. We visited the Folketing in Copenhagen to look at its methods of scrutiny. I agree totally that that Parliament is far more robust and rigorous in how it scrutinises European legislation, but I would say that this Parliament is second after the Folketing out of the 27 member states of the EU.

Richard Younger-Ross: I think that the hon. Gentleman and I disagree on that, although we have improved in the UK. When the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood) chaired the Committee, the business was always dealt with very promptly. We went through all the A briefs and B briefs very efficiently. The change in chairmanship, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), enabled us to become far more robust in challenging the system than we were before. That has been welcome. The changes that the Government have tried to make to scrutiny have also been an attempt to open up the process, which is also welcome.

Jimmy Hood: I do not know whether I am feeling nostalgic or whether the hon. Gentleman is, but I want to correct him on one point and to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick). The Folketing committee is not the best scrutinising committee in the EU. It was always my argument that this Parliament had the best scrutinising Committee in the EU. The Folketing committee mandates the Minister and the Prime Minister, and—guess what—the Prime Minister sets up who is on that committee. It does what it is directed to do by the Prime Minister; it does not scrutinise.

Richard Younger-Ross: rose—

Angus Robertson: That does not happen here.

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that that never happens here—

Angus Robertson: That was sarcastic, for the record.

Richard Younger-Ross: He says that it was sarcastic, just to make it very clear.
	The Committee has tried and is trying a lot harder. The current chairmanship is very demanding. When Ministers try to use the override to push through legislation without coming to the Committee, the Committee has called them to account and does so, in my view, more than it used to, which is welcome.
	The main questions are whether the proceedings should be conducted in public or private and whether the deliberations should be secret, even though the decisions are not. There are unquestionably problems with the system. Should we get rid of that system and sit in private? As the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said earlier, the public will not understand that and it is not acceptable.
	Alternatively, should we try to resolve the problem with the terms on which private sessions were conducted? The Chairman of the Committee has figures that show that for every 15 minutes of public session, we could have an hour or an hour and a half of private argument and debate. I have no difficulty in saying that some members of the Committee tried to hold a debate in that session when they should have been asking the advisers questions. The result was that we had rather over-long discussions in what was meant to be a question session rather than having those discussions before the question session. If those people strongly believe that the debate should be held in public, they ought to restrain themselves and hold that debate in public. If they repeat in the private session what they want to say again later, it means that we get the full force of the argument twice, which is not necessary for the Committee to reach conclusions. That difficulty must be overcome. I know from the meetings in the past couple of weeks that the process has shortened. The Committee should support the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and review the change at a later date to see whether it can be made to work.

Michael Connarty: Has the hon. Gentleman read the detail of the amendment? It says that when every Committee meets, the first thing that it has to do is decide at that time whether to meet in private or in public on certain issues. That, I think, would lead to a point scoring process. Certain members would turn up hoping to bounce the Chairman to make the decision to meet in public at exactly 2.30. We would then have the problem of how to get advice from our advisers, and we could end up with full public sessions. The amendment is badly scripted.

Richard Younger-Ross: That is not my understanding of how the amendment would work. Even if it did work as the hon. Gentleman has described, I am fairly certain that the Government Whips would make sure that Labour Members were there in time to save themselves from being ambushed. I do not believe that members of the Committee would do as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
	We need to discuss how the evidence from the advisers is taken. I do not propose that we should hold that debate now, or that the advice should be given to us in public. However, it is something that we need to explore and consider, which is why I moved an amendment to that effect when we were debating this matter in Committee a couple of weeks ago.

Anthony Steen: How would that be done?

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) supports our going into private session but asks how we would do what I suggest. I can tell him that I do not know, but that it is something that we need to discuss. I do not have an instant answer to his question.

Anthony Steen: The hon. Gentleman says that I am in favour of going back into private session, but that is not entirely true. I am in favour of making the whole Committee public, but that will not work with our present system of advisers and briefs, which is why I oppose the present arrangements. We need to work out a way to enable the Committee to sit entirely in public, which is very different from what the hon. Gentleman proposes. He is still sitting on the fence: people would love to know what the Liberal Democrats believe, but they have been waiting for that for some years.

Richard Younger-Ross: I think that it is the hon. Gentleman who is sitting very firmly on the fence on this matter. He voted for the Committee to meet in private, but says that he wants it to meet in public. Our decisions are taken according to how we vote, and the hon. Gentleman voted for our meetings to be in private. He continues to do so, so I think that it is clear where he stands on the matter.
	Finally, we believe that the Committee can be made to work in public, and that it should do so. I believe that it is a disgrace that we are looking to meet in private, which is something that the public will not understand. Every year, 1,000 documents of European legislation go through the Committee. The process of how we decide whether a document is important enough to be referred to this House should not be kept secret. It has to be transparent, and that is what we are proposing.

Keith Hill: I rise to support the motion on European scrutiny in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. However, as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I wish to explain why I oppose the amendment in the name of the shadow Leader of the House and others, the purpose of which appears to be to create a presumption in favour of the Committee meeting in public, for all or part of its proceedings.
	Of course, I accept that as far as possible Parliament should operate with a high degree of transparency, but there is a balance to be struck between transparency and efficiency. Since February this year, the European Scrutiny Committee has experimented with meeting partly in private and partly in public. I am afraid that that experiment has failed, and I shall explain why.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), our very good Chairman, has set out already the principles that guide our arrangement of the Committee. In order to protect the confidentiality of the recommendations from our advisers, we agreed that the first part of our meetings should take the form of an information-seeking session in private, while the second—and public—part should deal with making decisions about the contents of our reports to the House.
	However, that arrangement has not worked as we might have desired. It has considerably and quite unnecessarily protracted our proceedings. More often than not, the length of our meetings has doubled. On two recent occasions, the arrangement that I have described has quintupled the amount of time taken before we began the experiment. Moreover, it has led to unacceptable levels of repetition in our proceedings. The public part of the meeting has become a simple repetition of the exchanges in the private part. That is a simple waste of time, and it is certainly very tedious.

Greg Hands: rose—

Keith Hill: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but other colleagues also wish to contribute to the debate, so I shall not give way often following his intervention.

Greg Hands: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not see that the easy solution to this duplication problem is to return to the resolution of the whole House on 7 February, which was that the majority of these meetings should be held entirely in public? He would then abolish the duplication of the two separate sessions. It would be so much easier just to meet in public, rather than meeting in two parts.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman has often expressed those views both in Committee and the Chamber. For the reasons that I intend to set out, it is simply unacceptable that we should conduct our entire proceedings in public.
	It is tedious for Members to experience the repetition in the public session of arguments that we have already heard in private session, but I would accept that MPs being bored might not be a great sacrifice if there were a great public demand to observe our proceedings. However, there is no such demand. Public attendance has ranged from non-existent to minimal. It may be argued—the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) has done so—that such poor attendances result from the unpredictable timing of the public session, but I have to report that, with the exception of the constituent whom he mentioned, no Committee member has received any expression of discontent from members of the public who are frustrated in their desire to view our proceedings.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Keith Hill: I said that I wanted to allow other Members to come in, and I especially wish Opposition Members to do so. I shall give way now to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey).

Adrian Bailey: Given the passion with which Opposition Members have argued for conducting business in public session, does my right hon. Friend share my bafflement that a study of the timing of their contributions in the meetings reveals that a greater part of them have been in private session, and that they have not utilised the public session?

Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I must say that we have had a very candid and frank set of exchanges on this matter. The great bulk of the expansion in the time of the Committee's proceedings has occurred in the private, rather than the public, session.
	The truth is that we have instituted a grossly inefficient procedure, and for no good reason, as there is no public demand to observe our proceedings. Also, since there is no evidence to suggest that the public are interested in our proceedings—as opposed to our conclusions, which are published—there can be no justification for making public the entirety of our proceedings, because that would entail placing on the public record the private views and recommendations of our lay advisers, and some of us believe that that would be bound in time to affect the quality of the advice that they offer us. I also remind the House that it would be unprecedented for utterances of non-elected persons—whom we must remember are advisers, not witnesses—to form a large part, if not the bulk, of the written record of a Committee. I think the House will want to ponder long and hard before going down that path.

Anthony Steen: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on from his last point, may I say a few words? As a new boy to the Committee, he has been very much welcomed because he has brought a freshness and a different approach to its work as both a former Minister and an adviser to the Prime Minister. Is his objection to the public session to do with the advice that the advisers give us, and if we could overcome that stumbling block, would he be open to the idea of making the Committee public? Or is his point that the Committee is really just a signposting Committee, so he believes that we never need to meet in public, because all we do is direct various directives into the public domain for discussion? I just want to get that clear, if I may.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman, with his usual prescience, anticipates an argument that I intend to develop. I am grateful for his extremely warm words; he has been a significant influence on me, a new boy on the Committee, and on my understanding of its proceedings.
	Just over three weeks ago, the Committee published its report on subsidiarity. In the past 12 months or slightly more, the Committee has also published reports on the Lisbon treaty and on the scrutiny function. Like any departmental Select Committee report, our reports include the full transcripts of our witness sessions, witness depositions, and the record of voting in the Committee. Proceedings were also held in public, as are the Committee's occasional sessions with Ministers. In other words, when the European Scrutiny Committee operates as a regular Select Committee, its proceedings are entirely transparent. No Committee member has a problem with that, and there is no resistance to public sessions, where they are appropriate. However, that is not the normal work of the Committee.
	The greater part of our activity is not concerned with policy formation, or even the investigation of policy. That is exactly the point made by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). Also, for the most part, we do not set our own agenda. We receive and filter documents, and we inform the House. The European Scrutiny Committee is not the stage for great debates about the rights and wrongs of European legislation; the places for that are the European Standing Committees and the Floor of the House. On the contrary, we make a technical judgment about documents sent to us, and we report our conclusions weekly to the House in the form of our reports—there is no attempt to disguise our conclusions there—which are available in the Vote Office. In other words, we are, as the hon. Gentleman has described it, a service Committee.

Anthony Steen: A sifting Committee.

Keith Hill: I have already used that adjective; I am now describing it as a service Committee. The Committee was set up to facilitate the House's work in respect of the issues and initiatives arising from the European Union. Essentially, what we do each week is agree a Select Committee report to the House—a process, by the way, that occurs in private in every other Select Committee. The most precise comparators for the European Scrutiny Committee are not the departmental Select Committees but the House's functional or domestic Select Committees—the Administration Committee, the Finance and Services Committee, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and even the Committee of Selection. The point is that those are deliberative Committees. They meet in private, and everybody accepts that. There is a well-worn adage about the work of the House—deliberate in private, legislate in public. It is good advice and a good motto, and it should apply to the work of the European Scrutiny Committee.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I strongly object to the short time allocated to this important debate. I do not believe that the Leader of the House or her deputy have really done much to stand up for the rights and privileges of this institution. The whole procedure today appears to be very much driven by the Government's requirements, and the short time allocated for this debate is a reflection of that.
	The core issue in this short debate about the European scrutiny system is openness against secrecy. As usual, the friends of secrecy deploy a lot of self-serving arguments, as they have always done. I am quite sure that in the 18th century the same arguments were deployed against allowing reporters to enter the Chamber and take away records and accounts of proceedings. The argument was that the integrity and candour of debate would be undermined if the public were allowed to know what went on. That is a poor argument—and, today, a very damaging one, because there is an acknowledged gap between the public and the political system. Nowhere is that greater than in respect of European business.
	Throughout the debates about the European constitution and the treaty of Lisbon, it was asserted by Ministers—by the Government—that we had to ventilate the system and allow people in to see what was done on their behalf. They do not know what is going on in secretive committees in the European Union such as the article 133 committee that sets our trade policy, because only officials sit on it and no minutes are published. It is here that people want to know what is done in their name, and although the European Union is secretive in its deliberations, there is no absolutely no need for us to replicate that secrecy in our own proceedings.

Angus Robertson: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the strongest argument against meeting in public is that it would somehow impinge on the independent advice that we receive from our advisers? But, for the record, does the House not appreciate that it would be useful if the advice that we received in advance of meetings came with the telephone number of the advisers in question, so that, should we have any queries about explanatory memorandums, we might take them up with the advisers in advance of the meeting, which could then take place entirely in public?

David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman makes a very creative suggestion, which the Government have not even considered. Of course we want to protect our advisers from giving confidential advice that may be damaging, but in this country we have a culture of secrecy, and official Britain needs to roll back its frontiers. It was not very long ago that the advice given by magistrates clerks in court was secret; now it is public. It was not very long ago that planning officers gave their advice to a committee only in private; now it is public. The roof did not fall in and civilisation did not end. It ought to become part of the national culture to take people along with us—to allow them to see what is done on their behalf. Of course there is an institutional tension, as there should be, between the House and the Executive, because our Clerk advisers and legal advisers quite properly give us advice that does not always accord with the advice given by Ministers, but that is a healthy part of the debate, and we should not be ashamed of it.

William Cash: Taking up the point just made by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), I must say that it would not be by any means impossible for us to have two completely separate sessions at which we dealt with the question of advice with the Clerks on the one hand and then went into public sitting. We would not need to telephone the Clerks, because we would have two separate sessions. It is perfectly simple—no problem at all. The following session would be open to the public, and open for broadcasting, as it could be and often is.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes a constructive suggestion; he has lengthy experience on the Committee. What is true is that, currently, we treat the public with contempt. They read and are told that our proceedings at some point—the phrase is "when convenient"—will be opened to the public. But that is for our convenience, not that of the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) gave us an example of when they do turn up. A constituent wrote to him, saying that he had gone to the Committee and had had to wait half an hour or an hour before being admitted. On more than one occasion, we have actually moved to consider a draft report and put back by another half an hour the time at which the public can be admitted. This is not our Parliament, however. The public sent us here, they pay our salary, this is a democracy and they ought to come first. They ought to be permitted, allowed, encouraged, indeed, to watch what we try to do on their behalf. The importance is obvious, and the point has already been made that more than half the legislation in this country originates from the European Union. Even the Government admit to that figure, but I believe that it is higher than that. The dominant influence on our legislation and regulations comes from the European Union.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some common sense has been injected into the debate with the acceptance that the official advice should be private to us? Perhaps our debate about the issues should be public, but the crucial thing is that the advice should be in private so that the officials remain private people and do not become public, political figures. That would be the problem.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I have already given examples of other public bodies, such as magistrates courts and planning committees, in which what was once secret is now public—to the general benefit. I do not accept that all advice should be given in private. That should be done exceptionally, when the case for doing so is made. The case could be about national security or commercial confidentiality, or the advisers might say that they wished to give sensitive advice that could be given only in private.
	However, the case should be made on each and every occasion. The presumption should be that this vital Committee, which is a conduit for more than half of all the legislative procedures in this country, should be open to the public and that the press and public can be admitted as of right. I make that modest request on behalf of the people who send us here, and I strongly support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).

Kelvin Hopkins: I have prepared a longer speech, but I have only about one minute. I have listened to the debate with interest, but I believe that we should do everything to ensure that our official advice stays private and confidential—to protect the advisers, who would otherwise become political figures. They would be identified as Eurosceptics or Euroenthusiasts, and the advice would not be as objective and robust as what we get at the moment. Such objective and robust advice is crucial.
	I speak as a profound critic of the European Union who takes a view similar to that of many Conservative Members about the importance of retaining parliamentary democracy and not handing over power to Brussels and bureaucrats. What we have now actually works. One of the reasons why I so enjoy being a member of the European Scrutiny Committee is that we have absolutely first-class written and oral papers and first-class advice from our five advisers and legal adviser. If they became public in any way, we would end up with bland advice that was less robust. The Euroenthusiasts, who no doubt want to run rings around people such as myself, would have a field day.
	I support Government Front Benchers strongly on this matter. If we can find a way of making our debates about Europe more public, that will be fine. However, we must, above all, protect our advisers so that they can give free, robust and objective advice about all matters European. I, for one, think that what they do now is first class and of fundamental importance to our democracy. They ensure that we understand what is going on in Europe, and that the Euroenthusiasts—many of whom are on my side of the House—do not run rings around people such as me.
	I have had only a brief time to speak, but I wanted to make my point.

William Cash: Very briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker— [Laughter.]
	 It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker  proceeded to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 201.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	 Main Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That the amendments to Standing Order No. 119 and the amendments to nomenclature in the Standing Orders agreed to by this House on 7th February 2008, shall have permanent effect from 1st January 2009.

MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF  COMMONS (STANDING ORDERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the amendments to the Standing Orders and new Orders, agreed to by this House on 25th October 2007, relating to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons in its First Report of Session 2006-07, Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the back bench Member (House of Commons Paper No. 337 of Session 2006-5 07) and the Government response thereto (Cm. 7231) shall have permanent effect with the following amendments—
	(1) In Standing Order No. 24A (Topical debates)—
	(d) in line 19, leave out 'six' and insert 'ten'; and
	(e) in line 24, leave out from 'to' to the end of line 26 and insert 'a maximum of five interventions.'.
	(2) In Standing Order No. 24B (Amendments to motions to consider specified
	matters)—
	(a) in line 1, after 'Speaker', insert 'or the Chairman'; and
	(b) in line 2, after 'House', insert 'or, as the case may be, the committee'.— [Ms Harman.]
	 Amendment proposed: (a), leave out lines 9 to 12.  —[Mrs. May.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 87.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
	 Ordered, ,
	That the amendments to the Standing Orders and new Orders, agreed to by this House on 25th October 2007, relating to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons in its First Report of Session 2006-07, Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the back bench Member (House of Commons Paper No. 337 of Session 2006-07) and the Government response thereto (Cm. 7231) shall have permanent effect with the following amendments—
	In Standing Order No. 24B (Amendments to motions to consider specified matters)—
	(a) in line 1, after 'Speaker', insert 'or the Chairman'; and
	(b) in line 2, after 'House', insert 'or, as the case may be, the committee'.

Speaker's Conference

Harriet Harman: I beg to move,
	That—
	(1) There shall be a committee to be known as the Speaker's Conference which shall consist of the Speaker, who shall be chairman, and up to 17 other Members appointed by the Speaker one of whom shall be vice-chairman;
	(2) The Conference shall consider and make recommendations for rectifying the disparity between the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in the House of Commons and their representation in the UK population at large; and may agree to consider other associated matters;
	(3) Notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, the Conference shall conduct its proceedings in such manner, and have such of those powers which the House may delegate to select committees, as the Speaker shall determine;
	(4) The Conference shall have power to report from time to time;
	(5) The quorum of the Conference shall be five;
	(6) This order shall have effect until the end of the current Parliament.
	Anyone watching our debates today will have seen Members from all parts of the country. As Members of this House, we represent 646 different constituencies in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, it is not enough to have a geographical representation. For people in this country, their identity comes not just from where they live, but from whether they are men or women, whether they are disabled, whether they are black or white and whether they are gay or lesbian. Society has changed and we must recognise that the House of Commons needs to change, too.
	As women in this country, we now regard ourselves as equal citizens, yet we are not equal in numbers in this House. We are out-numbered by men by five to one. This country is ethnically diverse now—indeed, it has been for many decades—but of 646 Members, only 15 are black or Asian. To be representative of our population, we should have more than four times that number. All of us argue that a disability should not exclude someone from the mainstream of life in this country. There are 10 million disabled people in this country, yet although my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) exemplify the fact that many disabled people work alongside those without disabilities, what is normal outside the House is still exceptional within it.
	If we believe that women are equal; if we are to take account of the fact that the citizens of this country are black and Asian, as well as white; if we acknowledge that someone's ability not their disability is what counts; and if we abhor the prejudice that discriminates against people on the grounds of their sexuality, we should accept that for the House of Commons to command greater public confidence and have more legitimacy it needs to be more representative of this country than it is now. How are we to convince young black and Asian men that they are genuinely included in our society and our democracy when they still see so few black and brown faces on our green Benches?
	Perception matters. The first non-white MPs were elected to this House in 1987. They broke new ground. I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and the late Bernie Grant. They were pioneers. I will never forget the huge impact that Bernie had on my constituents of African origin when he took part in the Queen's Speech debate dressed in his African robes. I spoke for them as their constituency MP, but as a black man of African origin like them, Bernie spoke for them, too. He made this their House of Commons, too. No law that we could have passed on that day could equal the pride that my constituents felt in their black MPs. That was a step forward for our democracy.
	How could anyone doubt the importance of diversity of representation after the election of Barack Obama? Even before he has set foot in the White House as President, he has reaffirmed and re-legitimised democracy in America. He said, "Yes we can." We should say, "Yes Westminster can too."
	We are talking not just about perception—how our House of Commons looks to the people of this country—important though that is, but about our reach and our ability to debate. When I first came into the House of Commons more than 25 years ago, it was into a House of 97 per cent. men. It was hard to have a sensible debate about domestic violence, which remained firmly swept under the green carpet. Child care and the balance between work and family were simply not regarded as political issues at all. The women Members who came into this House in 1997 have begun to change not just the face of Parliament, but our political agenda. But we need to make further progress.
	There are issues of importance that our lack of diversity makes us unconfident to debate. How can we have a sensible debate about issues such as the veil when there are no Asian women MPs here? Mr. Speaker—I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; there we go, a moment of irony. Despite the decriminalisation of gay sex in 1967, up until only a few years ago, lesbians and gays felt that they had to hide their sexuality if they wanted to get elected to this House. I am glad to say that, following the lead of Chris Smith, we now have a number of MPs who speak to and for lesbian and gay people in this country. That is yet another regard in which the House has become more representative of wider society. I am sure that, as well as MPs, organisations such as Stonewall will make an important contribution to the Speaker's Conference, and I know that Mr. Speaker will welcome that contribution. Although it will be for each party in the House to put forward Members for the Speaker's Conference, and for the Speaker to choose them, I would hope that it will include at least one gay Member of Parliament.
	The Government have taken action to make the House more representative. We have brought forward legislation to allow all-women shortlists for parliamentary selection. We have legislated to outlaw discrimination on grounds of disability and sexual orientation. In the equality Bill, we will change the law to enable political parties, as part of their process of selecting candidates, to take positive measures to bring on candidates from under-represented groups, including black and Asian people. But Government action is not enough, and that is why we need a Speaker's Conference. We need a whole-House approach.
	The proposal for a Speaker's Conference arises out of a raft of suggestions put forward by the Prime Minister under his governance of Britain agenda. In agreeing to a Speaker's Conference, Mr. Speaker has taken what I believe will be an historic step forward in the drive to bring Parliament into the 21st century, and I hope that all Members on both sides of the House will support him in doing so.
	Speakers' Conferences are convened only very rarely, and this one will follow in big footsteps. It was a Speaker's Conference established in 1916 which secured cross-party agreement that women should have the right to vote. That was an historic and major change. I hope that we can vote today to set up this Speaker's Conference, and that it will set its sights high. The motion before the House today will establish a Speaker's Conference that will be able to meet in public, to be cross-party and to take evidence from a wide range of organisations and individuals. It will consider the disparity of representation between the Members of this House and the country at large. It will report before the end of this Parliament, and it will make recommendations.
	The Prime Minister is committed to equality of representation, and so am I, but I move this motion to engender progress on a cross-party basis. Through this Speaker's Conference, and with Opposition Members, I hope that we can all work together to address a shared belief in the importance of tackling the lack of legitimacy that is inevitable until the House becomes more representative. There is a democratic deficit: the missing faces on the green Benches, and the missing voices in the Chamber. This is not a criticism of any individual Member. It is a recognition that this House has a problem that we need to change. I ask for the support of the House, not just in passing this motion but in actively supporting what I believe will be an historic Speaker's Conference.

Shailesh Vara: We support the proposal for a Speaker's Conference. I note that the Leader of the House said that the conference would report before the end of this Parliament. Perhaps she would like to tell us when that is likely to be, as I am sure that many of us would like to know the precise date for that, or even simply to have an indication.
	Previous Speakers' Conferences have looked at fundamental issues, as the Leader of the House has already said, including issues of electoral reform. Whether they related to extending the franchise, to the number and distribution of parliamentary seats, to methods of election, to election law or to election expenses, the Speaker's Conference has been the method of choice for Parliaments to debate key elements of our electoral process. Throughout all those processes, the impartial leadership and guidance of the Speaker has been essential, allowing for cross-party support for the measures.
	The fact that such conferences are held so rarely—including only five times in the past century—demonstrates the importance of the topics, and the need to galvanise all involved into taking action rather than just using words. The motion before us allows us to debate the important issue of under-representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in the House of Commons.
	It should be noted, however, that when the Prime Minister first spoke of having a Speaker's Conference, he indicated that the remit would be much broader. In his speech to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations on 3 September 2007, he said:
	"Today I am proposing to the Speaker that he calls a conference to consider against the backdrop of a declining turnout, a number of other important issues such as registration, weekend voting, the representation of women and ethnic minorities in the House of Commons, and that he should also examine in parallel with the Youth Citizenship Commission whether we should lower the voting age to 16 so that we build upon citizenship education in schools and combine the right to vote with the legal recognition of when young adults become citizens of our country."
	Today's proposal, however, is principally confined to discussing greater representation for ethnic minority people, women and disabled people.
	I appreciate that paragraph (2) of the motion allows the conference to
	"agree to consider other associated matters",
	but the word "associated" limits the scope for further discussion to matters specifically mentioned. Nevertheless, despite its limitations, we support the motion. It would be helpful if the Leader of the House explained in her concluding comments why the proposed Speaker's Conference has been truncated to a version that is substantially less than the one originally proposed by the Prime Minister. Will she also enlighten us as to whether the issues of voter registration, voting at weekends and so forth are likely to be looked at in some other forum?

James Arbuthnot: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend and agree with everything that both he and the Leader of the House have said. Might not the motion be limited in order to focus on the matters of greatest importance? The inequality of representation in the House is a scandal that must be addressed and it is right to concentrate on that. If we widen the debate too much, we might end up not having an answer to anything.

Shailesh Vara: My right hon. Friend makes a relevant point and I suspect that Government Members would agree that that was indeed the reason for the limitation. I would nevertheless like to hear from the Leader of the House whether other forums will be established to discuss the other important matters raised by the Prime Minister in his earlier comments.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is making a typically courteous speech, which the House appreciates. For the avoidance of doubt, however, I put it to him that our right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) is likely to command considerable support for what he said. If we focus this Speaker's Conference on a narrow number of very important matters, we have a much better chance of eliciting a decent and focused result, which must include greater representation of women, members of the ethnic minorities and people with all sorts of disabilities, including communication disabilities.

Shailesh Vara: I agree with my hon. Friend, whose comments are, as always, relevant and pertinent. I certainly agree that we should have no poverty of ambition in respect of what we seek to achieve.
	Before I move to the substance of the issue, I express my support for conducting the conference along the lines of a Select Committee. That will allow for the reporting of proceedings, the taking of oral evidence from relevant people and so forth. This will be welcomed and it will contribute to producing a more effective conclusion at the end of the conference.
	On representation in the House of Commons, there has certainly been an improvement in recent years, particularly for women and people from minority communities, but it goes no way as far as we would like. Clearly, much more needs to be done if we are to be truly representative of the people of Britain. That being said, may I put on record the fact that although the Conservatives have only 17 women Members—we are trying to improve the position—we are pleased that we had the very first woman Prime Minister? We are also pleased to say that we have had two party leaders of Jewish origin, one of whom was Prime Minister, and that ours is the only major party to have had a Roman Catholic leader. Although we recognise the present deficiency in the number of Conservative women Members of Parliament, we have certainly played our part in the attempt to provide role models in the context of other issues.
	It is important for any methods used to change selection patterns and increase representation to be long-term measures, not just quick fixes. It is vital for selection guidelines and processes to be reviewed to allow a genuine step change in representation. What matters is for people to have the requisite skills and competences to do the job. That is something that Conservative Members have been working hard to achieve in our own selection processes. I am pleased to say that, in recent times, we have had a good deal of success in increasing the number of women candidates selected to fight winnable seats in the next election. As a result, it is likely that if an election were held tomorrow and we had a majority of just one Member of Parliament, we would see an increase in the number of Conservative women Members from the present 17 to between 50 and 60.
	Let there be no misunderstanding. We recognise that there is much more to be done. That is not to say, however, that we should not also recognise that we have done a lot in the past two years, which will pay dividends both at the next election and, we hope, in the years ahead.

Nicholas Winterton: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend is saying. He will have heard the Leader of the House use the election of Senator Barack Obama—who will become President of the United States in the middle of January next year—as an example of what has been done in America. Senator Barack Obama won that election deservedly, and I personally welcome it, but does my hon. Friend not accept that he did so without any positive discrimination? Is it not important for us, in the House and in the country, to seek not to manipulate results, but to achieve them on an open and transparent democratic basis?

Shailesh Vara: I shall deal with that point later in my speech, but let me put on the record now that Senator Obama has exceptional qualities, and has got where he is on merit.
	I very much hope that the experiences of all political parties in grappling with the problem of putting more minority groups, women and disabled people in Parliament will be discussed and dealt with at the Conference, and that all of us—members of all parties—will be able to learn from each other's experiences.
	Let me now turn to the parliamentary representation of people from ethnic-minority backgrounds. Of course an increase in representation is necessary: we all agree on that. We need to engage positively to encourage more people from minority backgrounds to enter politics in general, not just Parliament. That means their standing for the membership of parish councils, district councils, city councils and county councils, as well as the European Parliament. However, it is important for us also to ensure that those of us from such backgrounds are not pigeon-holed into what are deemed to be ethnic-minority seats or areas, for reasons of political expediency or otherwise. It is important to break down barriers of that kind in selection processes.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) represents a seat with a very small ethnic minority population, as do I. Both our constituencies can hardly be described as diverse in their demography. That fact is very significant, as it moves the issue of representation away from ethnicity alone and makes such elections mainstream. It helps to create an atmosphere less of "them and us" and more of the selection of people on merit, regardless of ethnic background, to represent any part of the country. To that end, I am pleased to say that my party has selected a number of ethnic minority candidates, to fight seats such as Witham, Chippenham and Maidstone, all of which are comprised of a predominantly indigenous population. Those selections are breaking down barriers and have led to the recent positive comments of Sir Trevor Phillips about the Conservative party's work in this area. Moreover, Simon Woolley, of Operation Black Vote, has said:
	"Credit where credit is due: the Conservative leadership is doing its level best to...ensure the party becomes more inclusive and representative."
	I would like to make a suggestion for the Speaker's Conference: that it not only considers how to increase ethnic minority representation in the Commons, but tries to ensure that the new ethnic minority Members of Parliament represent mainstream Britain, and not only certain communities within it. That has to be the way forward.

Diane Abbott: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I was first elected to this House 21 years ago, and I consider myself to be representing mainstream Britain; I remind him also that indigenous Britons now come in all classes and all religions. It is tiresome, 21 years later, to hear people talking about making people MPs on merit, because when my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and I were selected 21 years ago there were many black and Asian people of merit, and that remains the case to this day. We want due speed in tapping into all the talent and all the ability in our wider population that could be here on the Benches of the House of Commons.

Shailesh Vara: I agree entirely with the hon. Lady, and I fail to see where the misinterpretation has been. She is a shining example of what merit can do and of how far people such as herself and the other three Members to whom the Leader of the House referred in her speech can rise on their abilities to represent people. What I mean when I talk about mainstream representation is that it is important that we do not have a selection process whereby ethnic minority candidates are perceived, as they are in some quarters, as being suitable or more suitable for representing seats where there are more ethnic minority people. That is where I am going, and all I am saying is that we have reached the stage where British people are sufficiently able and fair-minded to select people on ability and merit.

Emily Thornberry: rose—

Shailesh Vara: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me for not giving way. I am mindful that there is a limited time for this debate and that many people wish to speak. I am sure she will have an opportunity to come in later.
	As for disabled people being in the House, that issue must be examined. We must ensure that the opportunities for their selection as candidates and election as Members are the same as those for non-disabled people. We must address something else if we are to have more disabled people in the House: we must ensure that the House itself is more easily accessible for them. It is bad enough that there are barriers to getting elected to the House, but worse still is the fact that the House itself is so difficult to get about for those who are disabled.
	I am mindful of the woefully short time that has been devoted to debating this important motion, so I conclude simply by welcoming the motion, which I very much hope will help to pave the way to having a 21st century Parliament that represents 21st century Britain.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is little time for this debate. May I ask Members to be self-disciplined in their contributions, so that the debate can be more representative?

Parmjit Dhanda: I shall be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	As I sit on this Bench today, it feels as though I am witnessing history in the making, and it is a delight to be here. I shall tell a short story about the culture shock I felt when I first came here. For a number of years, I tried to get into this place as a researcher, but no MP would have me, so I had to get elected in order to come here. I remember coming through the Carriage Gates on my first day in the little two-seater red sports car that I had back then. I was 29-years-old, I had the windows down and the music quite loud, and I thought, "This is fantastic. I am a Member of Parliament now." I walked into the Chamber—the House was not sitting at the time—and I was asked who I was and where I thought that I was going. I took the little green and white badge out of my pocket, showed it and everything was okay. I can clearly recall that what I really wanted to do was to quote Eddie Murphy in a film called "48 Hours". I wanted to say, "I am your worst nightmare. I am a black man with a badge." I paraphrase—that is not actually what he said.
	I do not think that these people—either the Doorkeeper on the gate, or the journalist who first wrote about my selection in Gloucester—are intrinsically racist. However, I agree with some of the things that Trevor Phillips said over the weekend. Dealing with institutionalised racism, to go back to the definitions from Macpherson, is about accepting that there is discrimination in all public bodies and institutions. We have to be brave enough to say that none of us—no political party—is immune from that. It is a case of how we challenge it and how we move on.
	When journalists wrote about me in a newspaper, saying that the people of Gloucester had not reached a sufficiently advanced state of consciousness to accept a foreigner as the local MP and that the Labour party in Gloucester had made the same mistake as the Tories did in Cheltenham when they chose a black barrister, John Taylor, as a candidate, they were fundamentally wrong. When it comes to one member, one vote, to balance in the Labour party and to our electorate, I do not think that the British people are any different to the American people.
	I am pleased to welcome the Speaker's Conference, and I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House for pushing the proposal forward. I hope that we learn one thing over the next 12 months. When I speak, Y'know, it is okay for me to say "Y'know". I grew up in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Sharma), so rather than, "Y'know", I might say, "Hanna", at the end of every sentence. I hope that the conference takes into account the fact that that does not make me any less of a person. It comes from where people grow up and is part of what they are—it does not make them any less intelligent or less able to do a job in this House. I hope all Members will take that on board over the course of the next 12 months.

Simon Hughes: I am pleased for the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda). People will note and applaud what he said and how he said it. It is a great pleasure to have people such as him in the House and to see the change that has happened since the Leader of the House and I were elected.
	I pay tribute to the Leader of the House. We have had our differences on other matters earlier today, but she has made it absolutely clear that this place needs fundamental and wholesale reform of its membership. I have shared that view since the moment I came through these doors, a couple of months after she did.
	We live in a country where the majority of people are women. Parliament should reflect our country. In other countries in Europe, in Latin America and in Africa—for example, in Rwanda—there are Parliaments that have almost an even balance between women and men.
	We live in a country where significant numbers of people are black and from other minority communities. The Leader of the House's constituency, and mine, have large African communities, which improve where we live and make them different, better and more interesting.
	We live in a diverse, exciting Britain, but it does not always feel like that in this House. Why? Instead of having 10 per cent. black and minority ethnic Britons in the House, which would be about the right ratio, we have nothing like that. It is frustrating for me and my colleagues. Our party had the first non-white MP, elected to Finsbury in the 1880s, but we have not been able to sustain that. There was a long period when no party had any black, Asian or minority MP at all, until the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and others came. They made it very clear that it should not just be them, but that others should be allowed to follow in their wake. Have we begun to be alert to those things?
	I shall be very brief, as it is important that a diversity of people contribute. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) has not been selected for debate but, like the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), I hope that its sentiment is accepted. This debate should not be only about women, or people from black and ethnic minorities, or disabled people. It should also be about gay people and young and older people, and about having a diverse Parliament. Unless we see that in the broad spectrum, we are not fulfilling Parliament's expectations of us.
	I join those who say that the Speaker's Conference is significant and welcome, and I hope that it is as groundbreaking as many of us hope and want it to be. It is urgent that we change. By electing Barack Obama, America showed what can be done if politics is opened up. It showed how more people—young people and those who have never voted—can be engaged in voting. We need people to look at Parliament and say, "I could be there, there are people like me there." That is the difference that it makes when there are young people and old people, as well as able bodied people and ones with disabilities, and so on.
	I shall end with two final points. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who chairs an organisation in our party called the campaign for gender balance. Like the rest of us, she has worked to make sure that we do not just sit passively by and let selections happen. At the last general election, our party doubled from five to 10 the number of women we have here. For the first time, in most of the seats that we hold where Members are standing down—and I think that there are six of them—most of the people selected to take over are women. We have to work at these matters all the time, as nothing happens automatically. That is why we need to look at the broader canvas.
	Like my party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), I support the initiative taken by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East, which has been used by the Labour party. The right hon. Gentleman has said that in certain circumstances positive action has to be taken, and that positive discrimination should be adopted for a limited period, because one sometimes has to break the glass to make the breakthrough. That does not always happen unless really dramatic action is taken to make it happen.
	My final point is an obvious one. I know that people bristle when this is mentioned, but we have to look at the fact that our electoral system militates against representativeness. I am not a theological purist for the single transferable vote. That is not where I come from, but I know that a proportional system of election such as operates in other Parliaments in this country and elsewhere provides a better balance of representation. That has to be on the agenda for us to discuss, and it is clearly included in the remit of the motion.
	I hope that no one will have any no-go areas in this debate. I hope that all of us will go into it with open minds and be willing to look at all options. I believe that the wish of the Leader of the House and of many of the rest of us is that, when we finish our duties in this place, we leave it as somewhere that looks, feels and sounds like Britain. I think that Parliament will make much better decisions as a result, because the mix that is Britain will be contributing to them.

Emily Thornberry: As a representative of an inner-city seat, I represent mainstream Britain. When I was a child in the 1970s, I remember my stepmother saying, "We are fighting the battles of women's liberation not for ourselves, but for you, Emily. We won't see equality, but you will."
	Unfortunately, of course, I have not seen that equality. It is said that women hold up half the sky, but when one looks around this place it cannot be said that women make up half of Britain's decision makers. Women make up only 20 per cent. of Members of Parliament, although this evening just over 50 per cent. of Labour Members present are women. That is a healthy mixture.
	There are 94 women Labour MPs, which compares with the Tories' 17 and the Liberal Democrats' pitiful nine. That is still not good enough, and it is not democratic. In the international league table of the representation of women, the UK comes a shameful 59th—behind Rwanda, Afghanistan, China and Honduras.
	It is about time that we did something about the problem. At the present rate of increase in women's representation, not only will I not see women's equality in this place, but neither will my daughter—nor her daughter, nor her daughter, nor her daughter, nor her daughter, nor her daughter. But her daughter might, by the time that she retires. That will not do. We must do something. I want to be able to tell my daughter that the battle I am fighting is a battle for her, and to be able to deliver that for her. I want us to win this battle for us all.
	I wholeheartedly support this initiative, but with one reservation. The proposed Speaker's Conference should expand its remit to consider the increased representation of lesbians, gay people and bisexuals, because to have only one out lesbian in this place of 1,300 politicians is not sufficient to be able to speak about the lived experience of Britain's 1.8 million lesbians on their behalf.

John Bercow: This is a far-sighted and progressive initiative, upon which I congratulate the Government. May I begin by agreeing with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) that it would be a useful addition to the robust terms of reference that have been established to consider how we might ratchet-up the representation of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals in this representative House of Commons?
	I want briefly to make two points, as I am conscious that other Members wish to speak and they should have the opportunity to do so. First, this is, of course, about doing the right thing by people who have suffered too much for too long with too little done to help them—people who, on the basis of their ability, in a discrimination-free society would have been in this place for some years already, but who have not been elected and who probably will not come to be elected if we do not change the social mores of this country. Therefore, there is a sense in which we are seeking to cater to the interests of those individuals—be they gay, lesbian, members of ethnic minorities, women or people with disabilities—for their benefit. Secondly, and critically, as Members have mentioned—including the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) in his excellent speech—we are seeking to do this because it is for the benefit of the country as a whole. We should not be defensive about it and think it is something we have to do to satisfy a fashion or in accordance with the dictates of a particular plaything of a given politician. It is not about that. Our democracy will be richer, stronger, more diverse, healthier and broader if we go about this process.
	Of course, people will have their own views about the particular policies that should flow from the conference, and it is right that we should let the evidence take us in the direction it takes us. For my own part, I think that the conference must consider—and I feel sure that it will—the implementation of positive discrimination measures, because the evidence is that without them we might achieve progress, but we will do so at a snail's pace. We owe it ourselves in this House, and to the people in the country at large, to do better. It is a fine initiative, and I wish it well.

Tony Wright: I, too, very much welcome this initiative, and I think it promises much. I agree with everything that has been said, and I will not repeat Members' comments as that would be a waste of time. Instead, I shall be extremely brief.
	Let me explain what I would have liked to have happened—and as the motion includes the phrase "other associated matters", I hope it will happen. I am making a plea for "other associated matters" to be considered. In doing so, I would like to refer to an interesting speech made last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The speech was widely reported, largely because it was seen to be attacking bloggers. I agree with her on attacking bloggers, who exchange argument for vitriol, but that is not the argument I wish to highlight now.
	My right hon. Friend also sought to describe what she thought was an exclusion from political life in this country, and which means having to talk about a word that has not been mentioned at all in our discussions so far: class. The Labour party was born to bring working-class people into political life. That is what the party was about. It came into existence because the Liberals were refusing to choose working-class candidates, so the trade union movement and others said, "We will set up our own party to ensure that working-class people can enter Parliament." It would be odd to talk about the problem of under-representation in public life, and to set up a Speaker's Conference at which we could think about those issues and come up with remedies, without mentioning class at all. As my right hon. Friend said in her speech last week, it is pretty clear that we have a huge problem with the exclusion from political life of people who live at the sharp end of society.

Diane Abbott: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tony Wright: I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind.
	There are all kinds of social reasons for the problem, but to think that it is not an issue, and simply not to include it in the terms of reference of the Speaker's Conference, would be unfortunate. There is at least an argument to be had about whether middle-class women or working-class men are most under-represented, although they are both under-represented. That issue should be included.
	When we talk about under-representation, we have to talk about over-representation, too. We know that former public schoolboys are vastly over-represented in the House of Commons. I think that they are the majority element on the Conservative Benches. Is that primarily a statement about gender, or class? The truth is that it is a statement about both, so both have to be included. I hope that we shall not forget that issue, and will consider it with all the other subjects that I would like to be included in "associated matters", as it goes to the heart of what our party is about.
	I now come to my second point on class, which, again, was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week, although it has been mentioned by other people, too. If we are seeing the creation of what one might call a political class—a class of people whose only trade in life has been politics—we are creating a political class that is exclusive, and whose members live in a kind of bubble and are disconnected from the rest of society. There are major trends in that direction. I absolutely accept that we want to increase the representation of women and ethnic minorities, although I am outnumbered on this Bench, and the representation of people with disabilities and other people, too. However, if we simply finish up with a political class, in which there are more women, more people from ethnic minorities, more people with disabilities and so on, we shall not quite have attacked the problem of an exclusive political class. That is why I hope that we can smuggle some of those issues in under "other associated matters".

Jo Swinson: I feel passionately about our democracy. I believe that it is good thing for people to participate in democracy, and that it is essential that they do so if we are to have a successful democracy. We have a problem if lots of groups of people feel alienated when they turn on the television and see what goes on in this place, and realise that it does not represent society or them. That is the case whether we are talking about women, people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, people who are disabled, people who are gay, or people from different faith groups. I just mention to the shadow Deputy Leader of the House that at least one other major party has had a Roman Catholic leader; my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy) certainly falls into that category.
	Another group of people for whom I would like to make the case is young people. I declare an interest as the only Member of the House currently under 30. I enjoyed the story that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) told about his experience when he arrived in the House; he was basically asked who on earth he was and what he was doing there. That reminded me of my early experiences in the House. It took quite a long time for people to stop asking me which MP I worked for.
	At 28, the House is one of the few places where I ever feel young any more. I speak to teenagers in my constituency, and it is quite clear that I am no longer one of the young people. If we think about people who are in their late 20s out in the country, they are running successful businesses, performing operations in hospitals, and taking cases to court as barristers. They are involved at a high level in every other aspect of our society. We should hope to have more young people involved in elected politics, especially in this House. I look forward to the opportunity to pass on the title of youngest MP after the next election.
	I pay tribute to the Leader of the House for her many years of campaigning on the issue of women, which is one of the most glaring inequalities of representation in the House. She has truly fought hard, and on a personal note as a new woman MP, I must say that she went out of her way to be a friendly face and to have a friendly word, and I am sure that I am not the only woman MP who can say that about her behaviour.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) mentioned my work as chair of the Liberal Democrat campaign for gender balance, and I strongly believe in encouraging many more women to get involved in politics. It is something that they would actually enjoy, because, despite what we are doing today, it is not all about getting up and making speeches; most of our job as politicians is about listening to people, understanding our communities and making things happen—activities that women are good at and enjoy. I very much look forward to seeing after the next general election many more women MPs—I hope—from all parts of the House. I particularly hope to see more women on the Liberal Democrat Benches, because I have been working with many talented women who have been selected as candidates for seats that I very much hope that we will win at the next election.
	My party has taken a view on positive action, encouraging, training and, crucially, finding women to be candidates, because, looking at the numbers, it is there, rather than in selection, that we have the problem. But I defend the right of other parties to use positive discrimination, because every party must examine the problems that they need to solve to achieve better representation. I noted the comments of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who is no longer in his place, but we must shy away from parties telling each other about the only way to achieve success. We should have legislation that enables parties to make their own choices, and give parties the freedom to choose.
	Other Members want to speak, but, in conclusion, the Speaker's Conference is a fabulous opportunity to address the issues of under-representation, and I sincerely hope that it is the start of real change in Parliament.

Keith Vaz: I shall speak briefly, first to thank the Leader of the House for her kind comments about myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I am nervous about sitting next to my hon. Friend, however, because the last time that I did so we were discussing the issue of 42-day detention, and she heckled me throughout my speech.

David Winnick: Rightly so.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend heckled me, too. However, on this occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and I are on the same side.
	The Leader of the House is a true campaigner, and although I am absolutely certain that she has many years ahead of her in government, I think that this issue will represent her place in history. The way in which she has clearly put her footprint on the equality agenda, by ensuring that we have an equality Bill, and by moving such issues forward, is a terrific tribute to her, and it is paid not just by me but by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who has just spoken, and by others.
	It has been great to hear contributions to the debate by others from all parts of the House. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is a great champion of equality in the ethnic minority communities, but may I say to the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), who spoke from the Conservative Front Bench, that he does not have to be defensive about the issue of being pigeonholed? His party should be very proud of him. When my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and I entered the House, I never thought that we would see someone from the ethnic minority communities speaking on behalf of the Conservative party from the Front Bench. He does it with great dignity and he is there on merit, and the fact is that he is only the third ethnic minority person ever to serve the Conservative party as a Member.

Shailesh Vara: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Keith Vaz: I shall not, because time is very short.  [ Interruption. ] All right, I shall.

Shailesh Vara: It is not that I fear that I am pigeonholed, because I am not. I simply want to clarify the point that if Parliament is to progress in the 21st century, we must have a Parliament in which ethnic minorities do not represent constituencies where, on the whole, there are large ethnic minority communities. In the same way that white Members can represent ethnic minorities, ethnic minority Members can represent substantially white seats.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friends the Members for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar), for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Sharma), for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and for Brent, South (Ms Butler), and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik), and the Minister of State, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) do not represent just the ethnic minority communities.  [ Interruption. ] I understand what the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire is saying, but anyone elected to this House—woman, man, ethnic minority—represents their entire constituency, and that is why we should be very proud of the fact that we have such a large representation.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow): I know that it is dangerous to prejudge the outcome of the Speaker's Conference, because it has not actually started, but he is right that we need to look at the issue of positive action. That is why I strongly favour the political parties themselves taking action. The reason why Parliament has to take action to improve the number of ethnic minorities and women in the House is that so far the political parties have failed to do so. That is why I favour the establishment of all-ethnic-minority shortlists. Look what they have done for women's representation. Look at this single Bench before me, Madam Deputy Speaker—seven fine women are sitting on it. I cannot say how many of them were selected by all-women shortlists, but the majority of them probably were.
	Only if the political parties decide to take action themselves will we get more ethnic minorities into the House. I hope that the Speaker's Conference will encourage them to do so and that it will fully engage with the communities outside. I welcome the fact that it will meet not only in Westminster, but in different parts of the country, which is important. I disagree with the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, who is wrong to say that the Labour party is institutionally racist, because those of us who represent it would not belong to such a party.
	We should consider the reasons why, on trends thus far, it will take 75 years for the number of ethnic minority people in the House to reflect their percentage among the population. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) represents the constituency for which the first ethnic minority MP was elected. As she asked, how many generations of her daughters, granddaughters and great-granddaughters will it take for women to be equally represented in the House?
	As the hon. Members for Buckingham and for North Southwark and Bermondsey have said, we have to think positively and make sure that we make the radical changes. Then we will be able to be proud of a House that is a mirror of the country.

Fiona Mactaggart: I rise to make the point that getting better representation for those who are currently under-represented is a matter not only of fairness to people who want to be in Parliament, but of better government. The lack of research on the difference that a substantial increase in the number of women and better representation of ethnic minorities has made in Parliament is shocking. After 1,000 days of the Labour Government, I did a bit of cod research that made it completely clear that not only the debates had changed—the Defence Committee was talking about soldiers' families, Budgets were putting money into women's pockets and we got rid of the tax on sanitary protection. Those things would simply not have happened without the voices of women here.
	One of the important reasons why we have to improve the situation is that all sorts of other things are not happening. For example, family visits cannot happen in a reasonable way under our immigration system, but that is not enough of an issue here because not enough of us have the daily experience of the degradation and exclusion involved. It is a shocking fact that, for the first time in 10 years, three Departments have no women Ministers. There has been great progress, but it must get better.
	I want to challenge a point made by the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara). Were there to be a majority Conservative Government, he is proud that there would be 50 women on the Tory Benches. Frankly, that is pathetic. At the last election, 65 per cent. of the new Labour MPs were women. That is the kind of difference that we need if this place is to represent the country that we claim to represent.

Diane Abbott: In the past few days, I have had the privilege of being in the United States. I cannot stress enough to the House how the election of Barack Obama has electrified ordinary people there—I mean not only black people, but Hispanics and white people. They have been electrified and reassured that the system and democracy work. Increasing representation for ethnic minorities and women is not just for the benefit of the individuals who might get a parliamentary seat but for the benefit of the political process—to make it look like a living and real thing to our electorate.
	We hear a lot of talk about positive discrimination. Having debated this issue over 21 years, I deplore that term, because it implies that we are taking under-qualified people and making them Members of Parliament. I prefer the phrase "positive action", because that is what I want to do—to tap the talent and ability of the qualified persons out there and bring them in here to enhance our democracy.
	A few weeks after I was first elected 21 years ago, I was at a meeting in my constituency where I met a woman I had never met before who looked at me and said, "When I saw that you were elected as a Member of Parliament, I felt big." What she meant was that she felt enhanced, she felt part of civil society, she felt proud, and she could see the possibilities for her children. It is easy for this to dissolve into party political bickering and point scoring, but there are so many people out there in our constituencies who want to be able to look at the House and know that it offers a promise of hope and advancement and a future for their children.
	I hope that the Speaker's Conference, in which I hope to play a part, will come up with an outcome that means, just as the election of Barack Obama means that many millions of American children of different colours and classes can aspire, that our children, in all our constituencies, and whatever their colours, religions or races, feel able to aspire, too.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered, ,
	That—
	(1) There shall be a committee to be known as the Speaker's Conference which shall consist of the Speaker, who shall be chairman, and up to 17 other Members appointed by the Speaker one of whom shall be vice-chairman;
	(2) The Conference shall consider and make recommendations for rectifying the disparity between the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in the House of Commons and their representation in the UK population at large; and may agree to consider other associated matters;
	(3) Notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, the Conference shall conduct its proceedings in such manner, and have such of those powers which the House may delegate to select committees, as the Speaker shall determine;
	(4) The Conference shall have power to report from time to time;
	(5) The quorum of the Conference shall be five;
	(6) This order shall have effect until the end of the current Parliament.

House of Commons Members' Fund

Peter Lilley: I beg to move,
	That, pursuant to section 4(4) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 and section 1(4) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, in the year commencing 1st October 2008 there be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948:
	(1) The whole of the sums deducted or set aside in that year under section 1(3) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939 from the salaries of Members of the House of Commons; and
	(2) The whole of the Treasury contribution to the fund.
	The House of Commons Members' Fund is, in essence, a benevolent fund for former Members and their dependants who have fallen on hard times and need financial assistance. That is a function that a good many employers carry out as part of their social responsibilities, and it is right that this House should do likewise. The fund currently has around 90 beneficiaries, a few of whom are former Members, mostly very elderly, although the majority of beneficiaries are their surviving widows and other dependants. The motion concerning appropriation is brought forward every year in line with legislative requirements, and it enables the trustees to continue making awards to ex-Members and their dependants, having regard to individual circumstances.
	The fund is governed by a variety of Acts of immense complexity that stipulate the basis on which payments can be made and the amounts payable. Some payments are known as "as of right" payments—a rather misleading term, since there is no particular legal right attached to them. "As of right" beneficiaries are such because they are not entitled to a parliamentary pension because they left the House before 1964 or are widows or widowers of former Members who have a parliamentary contributory pension fund benefit below the current specified level, and the fund makes up the difference. The other category of payments comprises those awarded at the trustees' discretion. Discretionary payments can be recurring to improve a person's standard of living, but they are more usually one-off grants to improve the quality of life and meet a particular need. The average value of the recurring payments is about £2,000 per annum. A handful of one-off grants are made each year, with an average value of only about £5,000. Relatively small sums can make a great difference in some circumstances. I commend the motion to the House.
	Let me take this opportunity to mention the review of the fund. As some hon. Members will be aware, an extensive review has been completed, and conclusions have been reached and endorsed by the trustees and the Members Estimate Committee. Implementation of the changes would, however, require changes to primary legislation. If new legislation is passed in line with the conclusions of the review, we will do away with the need for a Treasury contribution into the fund and for the annual appropriation motion. The review also recommended that "as of right" grants to former Members and spouses of deceased former Members paid under the House of Commons Members' Fund be increased from the very meagre current level of £2,924 to £5,000 per annum for a former Member and from £1,827 to £3,125 per annum for widows.
	Following discussions with the Leader of the House, it has been agreed that the most appropriate way of increasing the grants is by way of the trustees exercising their discretion. The trustees will be meeting tomorrow to discuss and, I hope, agree the most appropriate method for the recommended increase to grants made under the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981, and the way in which it should be applied.

John Bercow: Approximately how many people currently benefit from the fund, and can my right hon. Friend offer the House a breakdown of the distribution of those benefits between former Members on the one hand and spouses or family relatives on the other?

Peter Lilley: I cannot give a detailed breakdown. As I mentioned, there are currently 90 beneficiaries, the majority of whom are widows of former Members who were not entitled to have a proportion of a former Member's salary increased when the new increase for widows was introduced in 1975. By discretion, we raised the amount that they receive from three eighths to five eighths. That is the biggest single category. Then there is the category of Members who retired before the pension scheme was properly up and running, and their widows—that is the next biggest. Every year there will be a handful of former Members who have fallen into difficult circumstances who usually receive discretionary grants.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues do. Following on from the last question, can he tell us whether the trustees have complete discretion in each of the categories? Do they vary the amount depending on the circumstances and plea of the applicant, or is a standard sum given, so that those entitled get their £3,000 a year or whatever is appropriate?

Peter Lilley: I am grateful for the question. In the case of the so-called "as of right" beneficiaries, a standard amount is set down. It is a very meagre amount, and if they have additional needs, they can make an application for an additional grant reflecting their circumstances. The amounts given to the other, smaller number of beneficiaries are made entirely on the discretion of the trustees. The trustees have the power, through that discretion, to raise the "as of right" amount from one standard level to another. I would prefer that to be done by legislation, but we cannot wait for that so we will use the discretionary method, assuming that the trustees confirm the decision they previously mooted when they meet tomorrow.
	I conclude by thanking my fellow trustees for the work that they undertake on the fund's behalf. It is not a hugely onerous task, but it involves Members' time and we all know how valuable a commodity that is. It is a necessary and valuable task to fulfil the whole House's responsibility to those of our former colleagues and their dependants who need our help.

Chris Bryant: I rise to add the Government's support for the motion, and I would like to pay an enormous tribute to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). He and I used to worship at the same church—St. James's in Prebend street—and I think that the poor man actually had to listen to me preaching. He will be grateful that I shall not speak at any great length tonight. The whole House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and all of the trustees because we like to know that the £2 that we each give every month goes to a good cause, and is well administered. It is also important that the Treasury contribution is well administered. Although many of our constituents think that we live in pretty good circumstances and that there is fine provision for us in our retirement, such provision did not exist in the past for previous hon. Members. Sadly, many are in indigent circumstances, and it is therefore important that we ensure that funds are available. As the right hon. Gentleman said, sometimes a small amount of money can make an enormous difference to a particular person as they grow older.
	I am sure that all hon. Members want to reaffirm their commitment to the cause, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for putting the case for the fund and answering so clearly the few questions that were put to him. Without further ado, I am happy to support the motion.

Shailesh Vara: I welcome the motion, which allows for the appropriation of hon. Members' contributions from their salaries and for that of a sum from the Treasury. The fund significantly benefits former Members or their surviving spouses and dependants, whether they are "as of right" or discretionary beneficiaries. Often, the sums of money involved are relatively small, but they make a huge difference to the 90 or so recipients.
	I do not wish to detain the House longer than necessary, so I conclude by expressing a big thank you to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and his fellow trustees. They do their work quietly and without fanfare, but they make a difference and improve the quality of recipients' lives. For that, they should be commended.

Simon Hughes: I will be as brief as my two colleagues who spoke from their respective Front Benches. First, I thank the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and his colleagues. Secondly, I make the obvious point, which reflects a comment made by the Deputy Leader of the House, that it is right that we, who are on pretty decent salaries, make some contribution to those who came before us, when salaries were minimal and there was no proper provision for pensions, or for families or other dependants to have pensions.
	The resourcing of this place has changed fantastically in the period that the right hon. Gentleman and I, as well as others, have been here. Resources, such as pay, are in a different league. We are doing the least that we can in recognising that we have a duty to help, on a non-party basis, those who have gone before and who need us. It is right that we do that willingly and consensually and give the trustees the encouragement of knowing that the House is behind them.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That, pursuant to section 4(4) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 and section 1(4) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, in the year commencing 1st October 2008 there be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948:
	(1) The whole of the sums deducted or set aside in that year under section 1(3) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939 from the salaries of Members of the House of Commons; and
	(2) The whole of the Treasury contribution to the Fund.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together the Questions on motions 12, 13 and 14.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

International Criminal Court

That the draft International Criminal Court (Remand Time) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 6th October, be approved.

Housing

That the draft Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 15th October, be approved.

Healthcare And Associated Professions

That the draft Medical Profession (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 16th October, be approved— [Ian Lucas.]
	 Question agreed to.

Performing Right Society

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Ian Lucas.]

Alison Seabeck: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House an issue that has given cause for concern, especially to small businesses and voluntary organisations in my constituency.
	The debate on performing rights licensing is timely in that it follows hard on the heels of the closing date of the music licensing review consultation. Perhaps I should begin by explaining the role of the Performing Right Society. It is primarily to raise money by licensing playing or using music by collecting fees and distributing them through royalties to the musicians responsible for writing and publishing the music that we all enjoy in the UK and worldwide. Given that 90 per cent. of the Performing Right Society's members earn less than £5,000 in royalties a year, most of us would say that obtaining funds from those licences is reasonable. At least nine members of the PRS are based in my constituency, and the wider south-west is blessed with prolific and successful artists and writers.
	It is therefore right that the PRS should look after the interests of its members by collecting the royalties they are owed. The creators of music should be protected by a law, which provides that others cannot use the product of their labours for free. Indeed, most of the small businesses that have contacted me have pointedly made it clear that they do not begrudge those people seeking recompense for their valued work.
	The PRS can charge for virtually all the songs played on the radio and TV, on CDs and online. There are alternatives, however, and companies such as Fresh Air Studios—which is based in Plymouth—can source music for corporate productions that is exempt from PRS. By law, under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, if someone uses music in public, they require permission, unless the music is PRS-exempt.
	So, how does the PRS collect the licence fees? It continually contacts businesses across the UK to help them understand the need for a PRS music licence, and more than 100,000 businesses were contacted in 2007. Some 350,000 businesses across the UK currently have PRS licences. However, it is that collection process that has caused businesses to lobby me. In the light of their concerns, I met representatives of the PRS yesterday to discuss the matters raised with me and to listen to their position ahead of today's debate.
	Some of the issues that had been drawn to my attention included the methods used to target small business owners who may not even require a licence; the implications of the cost of the licence for small organisations and businesses; the lack of clarity in the process; and the lack of information about alternative sources of music.

Ian Cawsey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. I should declare an interest as a member of the world's only parliamentary rock band, MP4, although we do not necessarily put PRS or PPL to very much use. In any case, I welcome the balanced approach that my hon. Friend is taking to the debate and I am sure that she appreciates that the PRS and PPL are an important source of income for many songwriters, composers and performers. As she will know, a small business can get a PRS licence for about £1 a week, which gives it access to some 10 million songs for a year, representing excellent value for money.

Alison Seabeck: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. Like many colleagues, I have enjoyed the music of MP4 live, and I know that members of the band write its music in the little spare time that they have. I take his point—and will make it myself later in my speech—but there are concerns, and that is why I wish to raise them tonight.
	I have, for example, heard from the Association of Charity Shops, which told me that the cost of music usage is of increasing concern to charities and voluntary and community groups throughout the UK. It quoted its sports club members who said:
	"The average cost of a Performing Right Society Licence for a sports club is £369"—
	about £1 a day—
	"However many sports clubs use music only incidentally, with audio-visual equipment being primarily available for training videos or to watch sports events."
	One club treasurer could not understand why he had
	"received numerous very aggressive phone calls and a letter from PRS threatening enforcement within 14 days"
	if he did not purchase a licence. It was felt that the intention of the legislation was to exempt not-for-profit clubs and that the PRS was exploiting some bad drafting. The club had removed all the offending equipment rather than pay for a licence.
	Many charity shops use music to support an attractive retail environment, in the same way as any retail concern, except of course they divert all their profits to charitable purposes. According to the charity shops, the current Government consultation on music licensing threatens to add substantial costs to their outgoings. That money could only come from funds earmarked for vital causes. Surely that is not a desirable outcome.
	My interest in this issue resulted from a conversation I had with the chairman of my local Federation of Small Businesses, Richard Thomas, who wanted to raise the concerns of his members because guest houses, other small businesses, and even a one-man band playing music in his own garage in Plymouth, had received telephone calls and demands for money. Some said that they had been frightened into paying by what they felt were bullying tactics, because they were told that if they did not have a licence they could face legal action for copyright infringement, and possibly become liable to pay damages and costs. Most felt that the hassle and potential cost of pursuing that would be prohibitive, so they paid up.
	I have been inundated with correspondence and e-mails from individuals, businesses and organisations expressing similar concerns. One came from a gentleman named Mr. Robson, who is 75. He said:
	"The business used to be bigger, but I've retired now really. It's more or less just a hobby."
	He used to go to his office on his own once a week, if the weather was not good enough to allow him to go out into the garden. Unfortunately, Mr. Robson happened to be listening to Classic FM when he received a cold call from the PRS. He said that he gets a bit lonely in his office when he is by himself, so he puts the radio on. Sadly, he was unable to convince the PRS of his situation.
	Mr. Robson said:
	"The lady...didn't seem to want to listen to me. She said she could hear the radio on in the background".
	Two weeks later, the same woman rang again. Afterwards, Mr. Robson received a follow-up-letter. He said:
	"I don't know why they're picking on a poor old guy like me."
	None of the other offices in the area in which he works received similar letters or contact.
	Mr. Robson wrote back explaining the situation and thought he might receive an apology, but sadly all he got was a duplicate of the first letter. He said that
	"two more have arrived since. I just bin them now."
	Eventually, a PRS spokesperson confirmed that Mr. Robson did not need a licence. To its credit, the PRS called him to apologise.
	We then had a problem with Plymouth hospital radio, which provides an excellent service. It has contacted me with wider concerns, because with a turnover of less than £20,000, fees of almost £450 to PPL and nearly £200 to PRS are already quite significant. However, its concern involves the possibility of an increase in costs following the outcome of the consultation process. It understands the need to pay for music, but is worried that the consultation could have an adverse effect on it. It also feels that there is an awful lot of confusion and uncertainty among its friends and people in the voluntary sector.
	Plymouth hospital radio is staffed entirely by unpaid volunteers who collectively give up thousands of hours each year to deliver charitable aims. They stand out in cold weather collecting money, and the last time they did that they managed to collect £500. Those people have genuine concerns about how much will be levied and where they fit into the tariff system.
	On the issue of whether the PRS and PPL should be treated differently, Plymouth hospital radio tells me that
	"it is difficult to see a basis for this and we respectfully ask that when the legislation is redrafted"—
	if it is—
	"it includes a provision for a total exemption for hospital radio station charities from having to pay fees to either of these organisations."
	I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will listen to that concern.

Ian Cawsey: I declare a second interest as a former president of Scunthorpe hospital radio, a broadcasting organisation. I support my hon. Friend's idea that hospital radio should be exempt, full stop. Does she have an opinion on whether a lot of the confusion over what the PRS and PPL do could be eased if they were amalgamated? There would be much more clarity about what people were licensed for and where the money was going.

Alison Seabeck: My hon. Friend has a wide range of experience and talent. I did not know that he had been involved in hospital radio as well. Yes, there is a logic to what he suggests and the gist of what I am saying is that we need some clarity. There are too many grey areas, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister is listening to that point. Indeed, before my hon. Friend intervened, I was about to say that there are too many grey areas in the process, and a lack of transparency and clarity—exactly the point he made.
	We also have an issue about the meaning of "public place". Although the legislation does not define what "in public" means, anything other than a basic domestic situation seems to be deemed "in public". Therefore, playing a radio in a workplace is deemed to be "in public" and requires a licence.
	I have been given quite a lot of anecdotal evidence. For example, I chatted with a person at a dog kennels who played music to his dogs. He was the only person there, but occasionally the dog owners turned up, and when they did the playing of music was deemed to be "in public". Another example is the blacksmith who played music to himself while working in his forge. Because his forge was open to the public and people could walk past, he was technically playing that music in public.
	The definition of "in public" therefore needs some basis in legislation. The Minister's response to me on 2 November 2008 confirmed that there is no such definition, so perhaps he can give me some hope and the people who have contacted me a clear way forward this evening. The grey areas are also a problem for the PRS, which has made it clear to me that it would like a system that ensures fairness for its members, while being proportionate for business. I would like to emphasise the word "proportionate", because in my view that is the key. Small businesses are not convinced that either the complex charging regime or the way that the PRS pursues people to find out whether they need to pay a licence is proportionate.
	The process of establishing whether a person requires a licence involves writing up to three letters to a business, yet those letters cause deep unhappiness, too. Let me give some quotations from the Federation of Small Businesses. One person said:
	"I was approached in a threatening manner that if we didn't pay up prosecution would soon follow. We paid up and continued to be targeted even though we already had a licence.
	When we telephoned and complained, giving full details of our current licence, we were told that they couldn't find any record of our payment and we would have to pay again. After a bit of heavy handed perseverance I was able to resolve that we were licensed and that the records would be amended. This was done very grudgingly and without any form of apology for what was their mistake."
	Another person said:
	"We have been getting a run of letters for no reason, with each one of a more threatening tone—'Are you still breaking the law?', etc. I think they should be encouraged to educate, not threaten".
	Another person said:
	"I have had cause to get very cross with the performing rights licence people, they went through a period of months where they were on the telephone almost every day, threatening to send...inspectors to see if we were playing music in our café without a licence. We told them time and time again that although we were a café we did not play music—it took getting really nasty with them before they finally left us alone".
	In all fairness, the PRS was concerned when I described some of the cases in which people felt that the letters and phone calls that they had received were too aggressive and said that it had already acted to soften the language in some of its letters. That is good news. The PRS has also undertaken an independent review of its calls and call centres, to ensure that calls are being handled courteously and accurately. In addition, the Federation of Small Businesses has been invited to visit the call centre to see the process for itself.
	I have also heard anecdotal evidence of inspectors knocking on doors asking for money. The PRS has confirmed to me that that is not a practice that it engages in. For anyone listening to this debate or reading it, I would like to highlight my concern that there could be a scam going on. If anyone has somebody turn up on their doorstep claiming to be a PRS inspector, but not having made an appointment, that person is probably not a PRS inspector and they should either inform the police or contact the PRS directly for clarification.
	There are wider concerns about how the PRS inspects and what its role is. It is not a Government agency, so what are its powers to gain entry to properties? I am advised that the PRS is able to enter already licensed premises, but would usually do so only with an appointment.
	As I have said, the fee structure is complicated and most people have no idea how it works. There is a range of more than 40 licence tariffs and fees, which are calculated based on the size of the business and other factors, including how many people listen to the radio. However, when I selected a category on the website, it was almost impossible to work out what the cost would be. Again, the PRS assures me that it is already looking into the problem, particularly in some sectors where the existing charging system has been questioned, to see whether improvements can be made.
	However, we need clarity in other areas, too. What happens, for example, if an employee in a company decides to bring in their radio to listen to? Is the employer liable? Do they need a licence? What happens if an employee plugs an MP3 player or an iPod into some speakers and everybody hears the music? Who has responsibility in those circumstances?
	Guest house owners are also confused by the system. If music is being played in a room for the personal enjoyment of a guest, is it being played in public? Guest house owners in Plymouth have real worries about the licensing system. One is Steve Scaife, who has received threatening letters and says that the PRS had the bailiffs sent round, although there has been no court case. He says:
	"This year I caved in and paid it, but nobody knows if guest houses should be paying it or not".
	Clarification on that point would be useful.
	The current consultation on music licensing offers an excellent opportunity to strike a healthy balance between the needs of the music copyright holders and the music users in the voluntary and community sector, but the feedback that I am getting suggests that the present options do not meet everyone's needs. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will bear in mind the comments made in submissions to this consultation when drawing up the Government's position. He will also understand that, with the expanding use of music in a digital and online age, the PRS has a difficult task trying to ensure that those responsible for the writing and publishing of music are fairly rewarded for their efforts. Keeping track of music usage on the internet and in other media cannot be easy.
	I know that my right hon. Friend will take note of the concerns that I have raised today—and of the willingness of the PRS, as expressed to me, to address the criticisms of its operation—and that he will do what he can to facilitate the process of improvement. Importantly, will he please ensure that Government do nothing to complicate the process further, thereby avoiding placing additional burdens and costs on small business and voluntary organisations?

David Lammy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) on securing the debate and on the forensic, reasoned and able way in which she discussed the issues. I found that incredibly helpful. This is, indeed, an opportune moment for us to reflect on the activities of the copyright licensing bodies, and in particular of the Performing Right Society, given that a number of complaints have been received by the Intellectual Property Office and by my Department.
	First, I hope that the whole House will join me in recognising the success of the members of the Performing Right Society. The society represents the songwriters, composers and publishers who make such a large contribution to the economic and cultural wealth of the UK. Of course, we are not just talking about the Beatles' back catalogue; we are talking about the creative work that young British people—many of them from the least advantaged parts of our society—are doing today. Two million people are employed in creative jobs, and the sectors contribute £60 billion a year to the UK economy. That is 7.3 per cent. of our gross domestic product. Over the past decade, our creative sector has grown at twice the rate of the economy as a whole, and it is well placed for continued growth as demand for content grows around the world.
	Intellectual property remains the lifeblood of the UK's creative industries, and those industries are even more valuable to the UK economy in tough times than in easier ones. In the music industry, the value arises from copyright. Copyright is important because it provides the legal framework to sustain and protect creative value.
	Let me now say a little more about the Performing Right Society—the PRS. It is a not-for-profit membership organisation representing 60,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers. PRS members have a right to request remuneration whenever their work is broadcast on radio or TV or in public. That right is protected under international, European Union and national legislation. My hon. Friend was right to say that the PRS is responsible for collecting the payments due to its members for the use of their music. In that sense, it is entitled to collect licence fees when music is broadcast in public, but of course, the value of music is not just about the revenue that it can bring. The value also lies in the music being heard and being accessible to the public.
	What do we want our copyright system to deliver? We want it to maximise the availability of creative works to the public. We want to ensure that creative endeavour is rewarded, and that users can enjoy what has been created, on fair and reasonable terms. Here in the UK, we have one of the world's more liberal systems governing our licensing arrangements.
	Let us look, for example, at the process of setting the tariff, which is the cost of the licence to the end user. Our system expects the PRS to negotiate tariffs and other terms and conditions with relevant representative bodies. Usually, that would be a trade association or similar body. Our system expects those players to agree a market rate for a licence, which is settled through negotiation. If negotiations break down, the user can refer the scheme to the copyright tribunal. In other jurisdictions, they do things differently. In some, the licence terms and conditions are set by the administration; in others, the licence terms are set by an independent tribunal; and some licensing bodies are under constant administrative supervision.
	The questions we must ask ourselves are, first, whether our system is working and, secondly, whether it is seen as fair and reasonable. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we also need to ask about the very nature of the word "public", particularly in the context where small businesses are facing harder economic times and the PRS has acknowledged that it is moving deeper into the types of businesses that it responds to. We are talking about very small cafés, very small neighbourhood hairdressers or the local chip shop, for example. My hon. Friend also raised issues about the hospital radio station and the local community centre. If the system is to work properly, it must gain the confidence of the public.

Ian Cawsey: I welcome the Minister's balanced approach. I entirely agree that things need to be balanced, but economic downturns and recessions also hit performers, songwriters and composers, so while it is important to ensure that unfair burdens are not placed on businesses or the voluntary sector, it is also important to ensure that the people who actually work in the creative industries in the first place receive a fair remuneration for the work that they do. I am sure that the Minister will agree.

David Lammy: Speaking as a former cathedral chorister who still gets the odd royalty, I agree absolutely. There is real talent at the Dispatch Box, but the key question is balance and securing a system that commands the respect of the public. Clearly, some issues have gone awry over the recent period, so I have reflected on these issues and found scope for improvement in two areas.
	First, we need to ensure that people understand the law, the PRS and what it is doing. Many small businesses are unaware that they need a licence and our inquiries suggest that not all large trade associations are fully aware of how the system works, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport showed. They do not always know that they can play a role in negotiating the terms and conditions of a licensing scheme, and some large associations are unaware that they can take a case to the copyright tribunal if they are unhappy with the terms and conditions.
	We need to make sure that information is reaching the right people and organisations. We need them to know about the role of the PRS; we need to make sure that trade associations representing small businesses know about the system; and we need to ensure the rights of the PRS. Customers need to know what the PRS can and cannot do and they need to know their own rights as users and that avenues for redress are available for them in the copyright tribunal.
	Secondly, we need to make sure that users have access to effective mechanisms for complaint and for judicial redress. As far as judicial redress is concerned, users, and particularly trade associations, need to know about the copyright tribunal, and they need to know that it has a function for them as a specialised court where they can seek adjudication on tariff schemes. The Select Committee suggested in March this year that the tribunal process had gained a reputation in some areas for being expensive and time consuming. I am pleased to announce that the Intellectual Property Office is implementing a series of reforms to change the position. However, we also need to ensure that we engage in the jurisdiction of that tribunal. Apart from the judicial process, I am anxious that individual users should have access to an effective complaints procedure.

Alison Seabeck: I welcome the direction in which the Minister seems to be moving. One of the key issues raised was the number of people who were paying up because they were not sure how much it would cost them to appeal or go to a tribunal.

David Lammy: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I have met representatives of the PRS, and agreed with them that there will be a code of practice to deal with complaints from individual users. The PRS will consult publicly on the code by the end of the year. That is a start, but I believe that more needs to be done. I am well aware that there must be an independent body to review complaints in a system of this kind. It cannot be right, in 2008, for there to be only an internal adjudication process within a single body, and I hope that I have been able to demonstrate to my hon. Friend that, in that respect, action is in hand.
	As the new intellectual property Minister, I am encountering many new and interesting challenges, one of which is the need to ensure that intellectual property rights are properly understood and valued by those who live by and from the system. I have heard much in the debate, from my hon. Friend and others, that gives food for thought. I want it to be understood that I do not take these issues lightly, and will reflect seriously on the points that have been made. I consider it important—indeed, essential—to the protection of intellectual property for licensing schemes to command the respect of the entire community, and for no process to undermine the effort that our musicians make because it is seen to be harsh or unfair.
	I have asked the PRS to reflect on the breadth, as it were, of those whom it approaches in seeking licences. Clearly it is not great if someone understands the process for the first time only because a significant amount is being sought from them. There are issues of public education, but beyond that there are issues of proper judicial process. I shall explore those issues further over the weeks and months ahead.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Nine o'clock.

Deferred Division

Dangerous Drugs

That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 13th October, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 430, Noes 54.

Question accordingly agreed to.